The Lancet’s indefensible defense of antisemitic David Duke promoters

[shira]

Here is one of those seemingly difficult dilemmas for which, upon reflection, there is but a single moral choice.

You are an editor of an internationally renowned peer-reviewed medical journal whose primary capital is trust among its readers. This trust is built upon over two centuries of publishing articles related to medical research and news. One day, you learn that two primary authors of a politically charged article you published have been peddling neo-Nazi antisemitic conspiracy theories. What do you do?

If you chose distancing your publication from the authors, apologizing to your readers, and informing the authors they will not be published in your journal again, you would be taking a strong stand for decency. If, however, you are Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet since 1995, you choose to dig in your heels, deny the obvious, and tell a journalist for a major newspaper, “It’s utterly irrelevant. It’s a smear campaign.”

This is not a hypothetical situation. Two of the main authors of the July 2014 “An Open Letter for the People of Gaza” in The Lancet (which carried 24 signatories) promoted a video made by American white supremacist David Duke. The two are Drs. Paola Manduca and Swee Ang.

more...
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-lancets-indefensible-defense-of-antisemitic-david-duke-promoters/

Really folks, it's just anti-zionism; not anti-semitism!

[still_one]

1. Here is another link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11112930/Lancet-hijacked-in-anti-Israel-campaign.html


"Lancet 'hijacked in anti-Israel campaign'
Senior British medical figures say the well-respected journal is being used as a platform by alleged conspiracy theorists
For almost 200 years, it has been regarded as a well-respected medical journal.
But according to senior British medical figures, the Lancet is being hijacked to campaign indefatigably against Israel, and used as a platform by alleged conspiracy theorists.
In August, it published a controversial “open letter for the people of Gaza” that condemned Israel in the strongest possible terms, but strikingly made no mention of Hamas’ atrocities.
The five principal authors of the letter made it clear that they had “no competing interests”. However, all of them have campaigned vociferously for the Palestinian cause over many years.
In addition, a cache of emails openly available in Google groups show that two of the authors, Dr Paola Manduca and Dr Swee Ang, have sympathies with the views of David Duke, a white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard."

[azurnoir]

2. yes that's already posted here too, funny you didn't notice

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113482044

[still_one]

5. didn't see it, thanks

[azurnoir]

3. and here folk is the proof an unsigned letter on generic stock paper that could have been typed by

anyone with an axe to grind against ProPalestinian groups , BTW the video is still availible on youtube on David Dukes channel something I found in a Google search of the video title, not quite sure why the rush because the video has been there since February of 2013, making his even more questionable. to find out for yourselves simply Google the title as named in the article linked in the OP - CNN-Goldman-Sachs-the-Zio-Matrix

[shira]

4. What are you trying to defend? n/t

[azurnoir]

8. Defend? nice try but epic fail I'm pointing out fallacy period

I know that makes some here rather uncomfortable

[shira]

11. There is no fallacy. Manduca doesn't deny it, neither does Dr. Ang...

Worse, the editor of the Lancet says he won't retract the letter even if everything is substantiated.

WTF are you defending?

[azurnoir]

12. once again I'm pointing to the fallacy because the Duke video has been up since 2/1/2013

making the need to hurry before it gets "taken down" quite unlikely go see for yourself just Google video title "CNN-eGoldman-Sachs-the-Zio-Matrix" if you have not already, and once again I will not post the video here

[shira]

13. So what? No one but yourself is denying anything. n/t

[azurnoir]

15. How is pointing out an incongruous fact denial? seems someones deflecting from that n/t

[shira]

20. Manduca and Ang do not deny any of the allegations, but you do. n/t

[azurnoir]

43. The real deal-demonize the Lancet by any means necessary re:An open letter for the people in Gaza

here in part the full letter at link

We are doctors and scientists, who spend our lives developing means to care and protect health and lives. We are also informed people; we teach the ethics of our professions, together with the knowledge and practice of it. We all have worked in and known the situation of Gaza for years.
On the basis of our ethics and practice, we are denouncing what we witness in the aggression of Gaza by Israel.
We ask our colleagues, old and young professionals, to denounce this Israeli aggression. We challenge the perversity of a propaganda that justifies the creation of an emergency to masquerade a massacre, a so-called “defensive aggression”. In reality it is a ruthless assault of unlimited duration, extent, and intensity. We wish to report the facts as we see them and their implications on the lives of the people.
We are appalled by the military onslaught on civilians in Gaza under the guise of punishing terrorists. This is the third large scale military assault on Gaza since 2008. Each time the death toll is borne mainly by innocent people in Gaza, especially women and children under the unacceptable pretext of Israel eradicating political parties and resistance to the occupation and siege they impose.
This action also terrifies those who are not directly hit, and wounds the soul, mind, and resilience of the young generation. Our condemnation and disgust are further compounded by the denial and prohibition for Gaza to receive external help and supplies to alleviate the dire circumstances.
The blockade on Gaza has tightened further since last year and this has worsened the toll on Gaza's population. In Gaza, people suffer from hunger, thirst, pollution, shortage of medicines, electricity, and any means to get an income, not only by being bombed and shelled. Power crisis, gasoline shortage, water and food scarcity, sewage outflow and ever decreasing resources are disasters caused directly and indirectly by the siege.1
People in Gaza are resisting this aggression because they want a better and normal life and, even while crying in sorrow, pain, and terror, they reject a temporary truce that does not provide a real chance for a better future. A voice under the attacks in Gaza is that of Um Al Ramlawi who speaks for all in Gaza: “They are killing us all anyway—either a slow death by the siege, or a fast one by military attacks. We have nothing left to lose—we must fight for our rights, or die trying.”

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961044-8/fulltext

original signatories to the letter

http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673614610448_appendix.pdf

responses to the letter , with linked one of special interest note this is dated 7/31/2014 the alleged email promoting hurry to view an already 18 month old youtube vid is dated 8/14/2014

http://www.thelancet.com/gaza-letter-2014-responses

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961126-0/fulltext

[shira]

58. See #57. What the Lancet is doing is indefensible. n/t

[still_one]

6. except that isn't what happened in this case

[azurnoir]

10. changes nothing the video has been on youtube intact as it is today since February 1 2013

on David Dukes channel under the title " CNN-Goldman-Sachs-the-Zio-Matrix" Google it yourself and see something that makes the claims against Pro-Palestinian MD's questionable

and once again here is the alleged email



ps no I will not link to the video

[King_David]

7. Yes it's disgusting ,

I cancelled my Lancet subscription and pretty sure I'm not the only one .

Shame on the Lancet.

[azurnoir]

9. BDS against the Lancet? well I'm sure the Lancet will cease to exist NOT

Yes it's disgusting ,

View profile
I cancelled my Lancet subscription and pretty sure I'm not the only one .

Shame on the Lancet

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113482100#post7

but if it feels good well BDS is for everyone even those who claim to be against it

Star Member King_David (9,030 posts)
18. Seems some people think it's ok to boycott one or other side of this,

I am against all boycotts.

This should give the BDS pause- what's good for the goose...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=80846

[King_David]

14. I don't subscribe to David Dukes newsletters either

And never will .

[Scootaloo]

16. You sure do post a lot of material from them, though

I guess you just follow from someone else's subscription

[King_David]

18. Really ?

I think I already proved that googling a lot of your posts contents brings up that nasty website many many times.

Not sure why that is?

[DanTex]

19. LOL. Like you were ever a subscriber to Lancet.

[shaayecanaan]

22. Hes lived in greenland, australia, israel, sweden, holland

pretty much anywhere as the argument requires it. I guess this means that hes a doctor, which would explain the incessant globetrotting. shockingly bad spelling for a doctor, though, i hope he never writes me a script.

[King_David]

26. LOL

Such funny posts we getting here .

We have real talented funny people here .

BTW speaking of spelling when you write
"i " ( sic ) in a sentence , you should capatilize it "I" and all the countries you listed should be capatilized eg : Israel not israel as you wrote there mister ...

My excuse is I do most of my posts from my iPhone - what's yours ?

[DanTex]

44. LOL indeed. It's spelled "capitalized" not "capatilized".

And this isn't an typing error, because you spelled it wrong twice. You simply don't know how to spell "capitalize".

Doesn't your iPhone do auto-correction?

[King_David]

45. Yes SIR.

Teach

[DanTex]

31. He doesn't always drink beer. But when he does...he prefers Dos Equis.

[King_David]

25. That's such a funny post of yours

Ha ha ha ha

[Scootaloo]

17. Hmmm. The CPO of a pro-fascist hyperpartisan "NGO" tied tightly to the Israeli government...

Is upset by the fact that the side activities of two signatories to a letter are irrelevant to the letter. This poutrage is being brought to us by someone who regularly posts shit from antisemitic fuckholes like Kenneth Meshoe and rabid anti-Arab freaks like Caroline Glick and Schmuley Boteach, to say nothing marble headed conspiracy theorist like Nahum Shahaf. This poster primarily sources anti-Arab right-wing neocon hate sites to do so. Oh, and she believes that hamas controls Israel.

In this case she's being backed up by someone who can't seem to keep David Duke's words out of his own posts, who thinks Jews who identify as Chicano aren't really Jews, and that homophobe antisemite Chloe Valdary is a paragon of Zionist virtue worth rallying for.

Sorry, I'll take the editor of the Lancet over this clown car.

[shira]

21. Sigh... All people who disagree with Scootaloo are racists & fascists.

And even if they're really not, Scootaloo will insist they are...



Manduca and Ang went well beyond guilt-by-association, as they're proven anti-semitic gutter racists who've been given a platform at the Lancet. That is the real scandal here. Their beliefs about Jews mirror that of David Duke and are not irrelevant to their open letter. That letter absolves Hamas of all blame and argues absurdly that 95% of Israeli academics are complicit in the Gaza "massacre" because they failed to sign some ridiculous document. They're modern McCarthyites to boot!

And you're siding with Team Hate?

[intaglio]

28. and according to you all people who are anti-Zionist are anti-Semitic

Why are you on the redefinition of words team???!!

[King_David]

29. A lot of people who are AntiZionist

Really are antiSemitic .

It gives it street cred. Makes it acceptable.

[intaglio]

41. As long as it is clear that anti-Zionism does not automatically imply anti-Semitism

Associating anti-Zionism automatically with anti-Semitism is a foolish thing because it automatically alienates the moderate anti-Zionist who want a multi-ethnic State not a homeland for the Jews alone.

Remember too that although most anti-Semites are anti-Zionist although there are also some anti-Semites who are Zionist, they regard the idea of all Jews being concentrated in one country as a good idea. There is even an argument that some of the support for the formation of Israel came from groups who wanted to get rid of the Jews from their own countries.

[shira]

35. Not all, but almost all. Well over 90%. n/t

[DanTex]

40. As long as you're making up numbers, why not go with 150%?

[shira]

52. Well, I could go with your sources that deny/ignore/fabricate facts. n/t

[intaglio]

42. As DanTex says that figure is cloacally extracted n/t

[shira]

54. Well let's test my opinion, shall we? What % of anti-zios.......

.....do you believe deny Jews are a people/nation worthy of self-determination?

[intaglio]

66. The Jews are not currently a nation - as you are well aware

Even at the time of the Roman expulsion from Jerusalem (not Judea, only Jerusalem) those who were Jewish were divided into several strands and many did not even live in Judea. The Samaritans, for example had all the traits that would allow them to be defined a Jews. Samaritans shared a deity, rituals and everyday practices in common with the Judeans but did not regard the Temple priesthood as the supreme arbiters of their worship and laws.

The Jews are a groups of persons of varied racial backgrounds, Sefardim are distinct genetically from the Ashkenazi and the Ethiopian Jews are different again. Those who believe themselves to be Jews share similar (but not identical) cultural and ritual backgrounds and often, but not always, a religion; sometimes the link is as tenuous as one set of grandparents being Jewish. Many Jews, probably the majority, do not regard themselves as Israeli and Israel does not regard all Jews as being automatically entitled to entry.

Your question is based upon a racist undercurrent because you see a self defined race as needing to determine its own rules and freedoms in defiance of all others who share a land with that race. It is that sort of thinking that allowed Jim Crow laws in the USA as well as the anti-Romany measure that still exist across Europe.

[Shaktimaan]

68. News to me.

Nothing you said would preclude Jews from identifying themselves as a nation. I'm not sure why you consider yourself an arbiter of which groups constitute legitimate nations as opposed to fake ones. Your accusation "as you know" would indicate that you consider the idea of Jewish nationalism to be some kind of grand hoax we're all in on, as opposed to a simple difference of opinion.

Your question is based upon a racist undercurrent because you see a self defined race as needing to determine its own rules and freedoms in defiance of all others who share a land with that race

Sorry, what race are you talking about here? Are you making an argument against self-determination in general, or just in the case of Israel? (Which doesn't fit your above description very well at all. Jews aren't a "self defined race." Israel doesn't impose different rules for Jews and non-Jews.) I don't see how you think the desire for self-determination parallels Jim Crow laws either.

In this same vein do you also oppose palestinian statehood?

[intaglio]

69. How do you define a "nation"?

I tend to think of a group of peoples occupying a physical location because any other definition develops into an anarchy where laws vary based on the racial, cultural or religious identity you assume or to which you are assigned. Your definition would either:

a) allow a nation which wherever they lived to indulge in, for example, female genital mutilation or pedophilia or slavery because they had determined that was essential to their "national" identity or;

b) force other nations to assign territories to a self identified group where they can clear out all other peoples who do not belong to that group or force those others to adopt the rules this group had determined applied to that area.

Obviously (a) is not acceptable and (b) is part of the deluded colonial mindset that assumes the current occupants of a territory are somehow less important than the colonists, either because of skin colour or religion or technological ignorance.

[DanTex]

73. Good post. These have also been my questions regarding the "nation" issue.

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

In principle, if any group of people wants to call themselves a "nation", more power to them. But the implication that they get to pick some land and set up a government there against the wishes of the people who already live there is a different story.

[Shaktimaan]

126. You are confusing...

The meanings of "nation" and "state." The word nation is often used as a modern synonym for "state," thus it has two distinct meanings. When people describe Jews as a nation they are using the word's original meaning, which has no requisite direct impact on the laws of whatever country a person resides in.

Basic description via Wikipedia.

A nation is a large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.[citation needed] Webster’s New Encyclopedic Dictionary defines nation as "a community of people composed of one or more nationalities with its own territory and government" and also as "a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)".[citation needed] The word nation has various meanings, and the meaning has changed over time.

The concept of "nation" is related to "ethnic community" or ethnie. An ethnic community has myth of origins and descent, a common history, elements of distinctive culture, a common territorial association, and sense of group solidarity. A nation is, by comparison, much more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its coherence, unity, and particular interests.[1]

The nation has been described by Benedict Anderson as an "imagined community"[2] and by Paul James as an "abstract community".[3] It is an imagined community in the sense that the material conditions exist for imagining extended and shared connections. It is an abstract community in the sense that it is objectively impersonal, even if each individual in the nation experiences him or herself as subjectively part of an embodied unity with others. For the most part, members of a nation remain strangers to each other and will never likely meet.[4] Hence the phrase, "a nation of strangers" used by such writers as Vance Packard.

[intaglio]

128. Wikipedia is particularly poor regarding this sort of question

Shira posted a link to a Haaretz article citing David Miller's study "On Nationality" which is far more comprehensive. The article was written by Dr Samuel Lebens and his citation of the characteristics of nationality used by Miller makes a take down of the claims of the Jews as a nation particularly easy. See my response at post 105 http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=82364

Taking the elements from the Wiki article:
Benedict Anderson describes a nation as an "imagined community"; unfortunately by that metric historical every imagined community from re-enactors and gamers through to the British Empire counts as a nation.

Paul James says an "abstract community"; an utterly meaningless phrase, even in the expansion provided.

[Shaktimaan]

131. Is it particularly bad??

How so? Because their description was pretty much exactly the same as the other link's was. I realize that your link gave specific examples of how Jews fit the identity; but I think you've misunderstood that "five characteristics of nations" as being a benchmark of sorts. I see that you think "taking down" these "claims" would formally debunk the notion of a Jewish nation, (as unable to meet the requirements this author described.)

I can see you're not understanding this concept in a more fundamental sense. You CAN'T disprove the legitimacy of Jewish Nationalism by comparing it to other nations or to a list of requirements. That nations will and do differ from one another in how these "general characteristics of nations" are represented, isn't evidence that some nations are actually not-nations. It's that the definition is always going to be inaccurate and amorphous by necessity. The most you could say is that Jewish nationalism differs from other nations in some significant ways.

Let me ask you... Can you name an example of a "nation" that you feel meets your requirements?

And, if Jews are not a nation. Specifically an ethno-religious nationality, then what are they?

[intaglio]

137. Why is it bad? Because it is Wikipedia and subject editing by those with an agenda to sell

Firstly I am not debunking a "Jewish nation," Israel is a Jewish nation, the constitution of formally describes itself as a Jewish and secular nation and I do not deny the current legitimacy of the State of Israel - whatever the faults of the governing clique. What I find ridiculous is it idea that "The Jews" as a mass of people constitute a nation; it is just as ridiculous as saying the Saxons constitute a nation or that the Muslims constitute a nation.

You fly off at a tangent saying I "... CAN'T (sic) disprove the legitimacy of Jewish nationalism," but I do not challenge that; my I challenge is to the idea that there is some vast grouping which somehow includes all Jews. There is no need to need to disprove this concept; it is disproved because so many Jews do not consider themselves as members of any nation except those in which they are resident or to which they owe allegiance, in other words they are members of another nation not an overarching and fictional "Jewish Nation". I do deny that there is some overarching nation to which all Jews belong to the exclusion of all others.

Consider, if Jewish Nationalism outside of Israel is a thing how is it to be expressed? Are all Jews to be subject to different laws than those round them? Can they join the armed forces of another nation and honestly swear allegiance to that nation? Can they be taxed by the host nation and if so do they also have to pay tax to the Jewish Nation? How is this fictional Jewish nation governed?

Essentially a declaration that "The Jews" constitute a nation is lazy thinking of the first order, with the horrifying disadvantage that declaring that plays to the bigotry of anti-Semites who see "The Jews" as some sort of world dominating superpower.

[Shaktimaan]

144. Is it?

What agenda could the editors of the page on "nation" possibly have? This is the same material I learned in middle school. It's not controversial.

Israel is a Jewish nation, the constitution of formally describes itself as a Jewish and secular nation

Well, no. That's incorrect. Israel has no constitution btw, but it defines itself as the Jewish State. "Jewish" is the nationality. "Israel" is the state. You are still using the word "nation" as synonymous with "state" while ignoring its original meaning. You are still talking about politically sovereign nation-states. That is not the type of nation being referred to. You're using the incorrect definition here.

I do deny that there is some overarching nation to which all Jews belong to the exclusion of all others

That makes no sense. It's not that all Jews belong to some overarching nation. It's literally what Jews ARE. You can't both argue that Jewish people exist while denying a Jewish Nation. It's equivalent to denying that Arab people belong to some overarching Arab ethnicity, (which is fictional because some Arab people deny their membership to this ethnicity.)

Consider, if Jewish Nationalism outside of Israel is a thing how is it to be expressed?

By being Jewish.

Are all Jews to be subject to different laws than those round them? Can they join the armed forces of another nation and honestly swear allegiance to that nation? Can they be taxed by the host nation and if so do they also have to pay tax to the Jewish Nation? How is this fictional Jewish nation governed?

1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. You're really not grasping the concept. Nations are not the same thing as nation-states. They are not corporeal.
5. It isn't governed. It can't be governed, any more than an ethnicity or a racial identity can be governed.

Essentially a declaration that "The Jews" constitute a nation is lazy thinking of the first order,

You say that, but everything you've said so far indicates that you don't actually understand what the word nation means.

Jews are an ethno-religious nationality. You seem to mistake it for something that Jews belong to or accept/reject. You're not understanding. It is what Jews ARE. One can not choose to abandon it any more than one could decide they were no longer Japanese, or reject that they are black.

Try this. If Judaism is not a nationality, then what is it? What does "Jewish" refer to IYO?

[intaglio]

147. Basically you have not formulated the concept of nation beyond "Culture" and "Ethnicity"

You just declare without any reasoning attached that a nation is what the Jews are.

Sorry you put forward no arguments only contradiction - goodbye.

[King_David]

157. Don't balm you for leaving, it's hard to argue against that. nt

[Shaktimaan]

182. Uh huh

So that still leaves the question of what you classify the Jewish people as, since you refuse to accept the traditional ideology.

[intaglio]

185. I classify them either as a loose cultural group

or as a group whose only link is a self identification with the group or to use the song title "Tradition!". There are some genetic links but they are pretty tenuous there are some religious links but they are as inconsistent as similar links within Christianity or Islam.

The Celtic peoples of Europe share similar links but in no way would they be classified as a single nation.

[DanTex]

72. The word "nation" as traditionally used (as least in my experience) refers to people living in

the same geographical area. For example, like France. French people are people born in France, or their children, or people who immigrated to France, regardless or race of religion or anything else. The dictionary also gives this definition.

I don't have any objection to some other group of people deciding to call themselves a nation (like "Nation of Islam&quot based on whatever commonality those people share that is important to them. But the issue here is whether this other kind of "nation" entitles those people to choose a piece of land and declare it their own, especially if it is against the wishes of the other people who live there. If that were generally permitted, then anarchy would ensue.

[King_David]

70. The while posts a lot of rubbish ,

Of cours Jews are a nation, a very multicultural mixed nation .

And no matter how much this bothers other people or irritates them or they protest or "argue" or whatever it makes no difference to fact.

[intaglio]

71. Define "nation"

Please identify the rules by which you class a group of people as a nation.

Israel is a nation - the Jewish are a diverse collection of culturally, genetically and religiously mixed peoples living in many geographic areas.

Oh, and the only thing that annoys me is people using terms they have not bothered to research or understand in either a current or a historical context.

[King_David]

75. No definition necessary

If Jews define themselves as a nation nobody from outside gets to tell them they are or they are not a nation , no matter how irritating that may be.

BTW today is the Jewish national new year

Shana Tovah from a member of the Jewish nation .

[DanTex]

76. I actually agree with you for once.

If any group of people want to define themselves as a nation, good for them. Nobody else should get to decide what they get to call themselves.

The issue is whether this nationhood has any implications in terms of territorial claims. And the answer would be no. Any group can call themselves a nation if they want to, but that doesn't entitle them to choose a plot of land wherever they want.

[King_David]

81. Yep agree too

[Shaktimaan]

127. You're saying two different things.

Of course nationality often has "implications" in terms of territorial claims. That's not the same as saying that every nation gets to "choose a plot of land wherever they want" (and presumably establish a sovereign state there.)

Wrt Israel, the state was established in Palestine because that is the original shared homeland of the Jewish people. You can argue that diaspora Jews had no right to create a state there, which is accurate. Conversely though, neither did others have a right to deny them establishing their state. That has less to do with the rights inherent to nations than it describes the political reality at a given time. (As is the case with the formation of all states.)

[DanTex]

133. KD's argument was that "if Jews want to call themselves a nation, noone can tell them different".

By that standard, not only are Jews a nation, but so is the "Lady Gaga Nation". Obviously, this kind of nationhood doesn't involve any kind of territorial claim.

If we want to get more technical about what a "nation" means, then, no, I don't think that Jews form a "nation" in the same way that, say, Swedes form a nation. This would be the kind of nationhood that brings territorial claims. But if Jews want to call themselves a nation in a more informal sense, I don't have a problem with that.

[Shaktimaan]

140. A territorial claim?

I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that because Jews suffered a diaspora and were spread around the world for thousands of years that their identity ceased to be a nationality?

Regarding territorial claims though you are obviously wrong. Jews have made a clear claim to their homeland in Palestine and created their state there. Regardless if such a state succeeded though, that area would still be the associated homeland of the Jewish people.

There's nothing really informal about it. In what way are Jews not their own nation? And if not a nation, then exactly what would you define them as?

[DanTex]

141. Well, basically I think the question of whether Jews are a "nation" is academic.

Last edited Sat Sep 27, 2014, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I also think it's ultimately a matter of opinion, and that's why I was agreeing with KD that if Jews decide to call themselves a nation, that's fine with me. The same goes for any other group of people. My opinion, based on my understanding of what a "nation" is, would be that Jews don't constitute a nation.

Yes, technically you are right, Jews did make a territorial claim. The question is whether this territorial claim gains validity from the fact that Jews define themselves as a nation with I/P as their homeland. To me, the answer is no -- events that occurred in antiquity and religious folklore don't make for valid territorial claims.

Having said all that, don't come away with the impression that I think Israel should disappear. Not at all. Israel is there, deserves to stay there, not because of events of antiquity, but because of the present reality. A lot of countries were founded based without what I would consider to be valid territorial claims. For example the US. I don't think the US should disappear either.

[intaglio]

84. Unfortunately words have meaning, you cannot just declare, with no basis,

... that only your interpretation of the word can apply - and then refuse to define that word so others can understand it and apply it appropriately.

If what you say is true what is to stop Jewish people refusing to acknowledge SCOTUS because they are not part of the American nation? What is wrong with a Palestinian nation slaughtering those who occupy their land? Why cannot a right wing group declare their nationhood and secede from the USA?

Shanah Tovah Umetukah

[King_David]

87. None of what you wrote there has any bearing on

Weather Jews are a nation or not , which we are , same as Italians , French , Japanese or Scottish.

And Jews don't need anybody's permission for this , it's just fact... Period !!!

[intaglio]

101. Italians - Piedmontese, Venetians, Sicillians, Slavs, Arabs, Jews and Austo-Bavarians

French - Basque, Alsace, Burgundians, Bretons, Jews, Moors, Normand, Vietnamese and Italians

Japanese - The main group, the Ainu and the remnants of the Korean Slaves

Scottish - Erse, Lowland and Highland Gaels, many Saxons, some Cymric, Norse, Jews, various Indian and Pakistani groups, many Chinese, many Africans and West Indians, some Spanish and French descendants.

The only thing that characterises these nations is their geographical location and the nationality that those living outside the geography have chosen to adopt. Note that in 3 of the 4 cases you have cited that Jews are proud to declare their nationality as Italian, French and Scottish not "Jew"

[King_David]

102. It really bothers you

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Too bad.


Your permission or approval not needed or sought , it is what it is.






Am Yisrael Chai

Is all of us ....

[intaglio]

138. Even those Jews who do not agree with you? n/t

What bothers me is the lazy sloganising of the declaration.

[Shaktimaan]

132. Really?

The only thing that characterises these nations is their geographical location and the nationality that those living outside the geography have chosen to adopt?

So the Japanese people are characterized by nothing but their geography?! Nothing else? Language? History? Culture?

You seem to be arguing that ethnic nationalities do not actually even exist.

[intaglio]

139. Difficulty, the nation state is a newish concept

and was coined as a counter to the ethnic loyalties displayed in earlier groupings. Ethnic groups can be nations but they require a location where the rules of their nationhood can be applied. In the USA tribal lands provide these locations but elsewhere terrible wars have been fought to establish the pre-eminence of, for example, Croats over Slavs.

[Shaktimaan]

142. I'm sorry. This is not correct.

and was coined as a counter to the ethnic loyalties displayed in earlier groupings.

No. It wasn't. Nation states were created to reinforce and protect those tribal loyalties by granting individual nations political sovereignty over their own lands. Hence the popular notion of the right to self-determination. Civic nations abandon the idea of loyalty to tribe in favor of loyalty to law. But the original nation-states were ethnic nationalities, which still make up the bulk of all nation states.

Ethnic groups can be nations but they require a location where the rules of their nationhood can be applied.

That's absurd. Why would an ethnic nation REQUIRE a sovereign land to rule over? You're implying that national identity comes after statehood, which makes no sense. The entire reason for declaring individual nation-states was to obtain self-determination for distinct nationalities. These nations existed before the states they later formed, thus they can obviously exist independent of political sovereignty.

In the USA tribal lands provide these locations but elsewhere terrible wars have been fought to establish the pre-eminence of, for example, Croats over Slavs.

So because nations fought wars to hold land that means nations can't exist without it?

You realize there are dozens if not hundreds of nations worldwide that exist despite their failure to achieve national independence, right? You've heard of the Kurds before? Or the basque? Catalonians? Are the Palestinians not their own nation, despite their lack of a sovereign state?

And US citizens represent countless ethnic nationalities besides itself, a civic nation comprised almost entirely of immigrants (aka: other nationalities.) Do American-Irish or Italian renounce their identification with their ethnicities once they immigrate to America?

[intaglio]

146. Revolutionary France one of the earliest self described nation states

was a mess of varying ethnic and and linguistic groups - even the measurement systems varied across the country. Standardisation was imposed based, in the main, upon the population and language of the Isle de France but including many other elements. How did this impose a tribal loyalty when it united all of the old tribes under a single, non-tribal banner? There was no national loyalty in France prior to the Revolution only loyalty to the Crown and even then conflict amongst the various linguistic and cultural groups was common. There are few who would argue that all of the old divisions of Royalist France are nations despite the fact they maintain many differences between themselves and what they term "Paris"

Another example, Italy. It is undoubtedly a nation but barely 150 years ago it was not; it was a mess of petty nations such as the Kingdom of Naples, Calabria, the Papal States, Venice etc. It was slowly united under the Neapolitan monarchy largely because of the actions of Garibaldi. By your argument all of these petty nations still exist, they do not.

A contrary example can be found in the UK where the concept of a single nation took centuries to take hold. However by accident the English attributed certain qualities to the perceived tribal nations and pressed these into the service of the greater nation; the nationhood of Scotland, Ireland and to a lesser extent Wales were celebrated even as the individuals were derided.

You claim that my concept is wedded to the idea of land when what a nation needs is space. This is a space in which to exert its authority, whether this space is a location or even a legislative accommodation within the larger state.

You decide to misuse the term "ethnic nationality" - when what you mean is "ethnicity" - in a meandering attempt to reinforce your thesis and you make no attempt to show that these ethnicities see themselves as a nation or even if they act as a nation. Recognising your ethnicity does not make you part of a separate nation any more than honouring a culture in which you were brought up makes you part of a nation of that culture.

Miller provides 5 metrics to allow us to recognise a nation

1) The members of a nation have to view each other as somehow connected, or even responsible for one another.

2) A nation has to view itself in terms of a collective history; as such, the nation will have a story, or a collection of competing stories, that it tells itself.

3) A nation views itself as somehow active. Unlike a church, that might view itself as passively responding to the will of God, a nation views itself as a player in history.

4) A nation is associated with a land that it aspires to rule over;

5) A nation will have a distinct public culture, with subcultures too.

Can you do the same?

[shira]

95. Start here...

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/the-jewish-thinker/jews-are-not-a-race-but-a-nation-1.436353

[intaglio]

105. Thank you, Miller's 5 characteristics are what I asked for. Now ...

As described by Dr Lebens, Miller's characteristics as

1) The members of a nation have to view each other as somehow connected, or even responsible for one another.

2) A nation has to view itself in terms of a collective history; as such, the nation will have a story, or a collection of competing stories, that it tells itself.

3) A nation views itself as somehow active. Unlike a church, that might view itself as passively responding to the will of God, a nation views itself as a player in history.

4) A nation is associated with a land that it aspires to rule over;

5) A nation will have a distinct public culture, with subcultures too.

I do not have any problems with these characteristics although I'm sure other political philosophers do.

To these characteristics Lebens then appends the following:

1) The Jews have long expressed such feelings with their dictum that “Kol Yisrael areivim zeh ba-zeh; Every member of the Jewish people acts as surety for every other member.”

2) For instance, “We were slaves in Egypt.”

3) We certainly view ourselves as an active people; a people who overcome adversity; a people who made the Israeli desert bloom; a people who introduced monotheism to the world; a people who value education and contribute to the arts and sciences.

4) even through our years of exile, we always yearned for our promised land.

5) And, of course, there is such a thing as a Jewish culture, often informed by religious Jewish texts, but not exclusively. We certainly have a religion (whether we believe in it and adhere to it, or not), but we are not a religion. Many of us might have similar genes, noses, and hair, but anyone can join us.

And it is in this that Lebens takes some pretty obvious liberties.

1) Kol Yisrael areivim zeh ba-zeh - is mistranslated; according to "My Jewish Learning" it actually is "All of Israel are responsible for one another" and is a statement of faith, of responsibility under the Law. Jews who do not follow the Talmud are not bound by it not to mention the problems with the various problems of what the various religious groupings regard as constituting "Israel" within the Talmud.

2) No problems with the concept - although the example given is utterly unhistorical.

3) There are some pretty obvious problems with this not least that, in the Talmud used previously, "Israel" is entirely subject to the will of God. Lebens then adds some rather romantic nonsense:a) "making the Desert bloom," which applies to many groups for example ancient Egyptians and ancient Yemenis were also pretty good at that; (b) introducing monotheism to the world - which would be news to the Zoroastrians and (given the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is pretty specious; (c) a people who value education, arts etc. but Yeshiva education disregards such earthly learning as unimportant hence the problems with national education authorities in America, Europe and even Israel itself.

4) Where to begin? Perhaps the term "Yearn" which in no way implies ruling or even inhabiting; for example the saying encapsulating this yearning, "next year in Jerusalem," refers to visiting the Holy City and worshipping at the Temple (Wall). Then there is the simple problem that many Jews do not aspire to ruling over any land, let alone the Holy Land; many Jews are anti Zionist and many have no desire to leave their homelands.

5) "There is such a thing as Jewish culture" - and every person identifying as a Jew probably disagrees as to what that culture is.
"We have a reigion" except when "we" don't and even the various religious groups disagree about that religion
"Many of us have similar genes," (the rest of the statement is tautology) - All humans have similar genes and the expression of those genes, even within Jews, is not consistent; as I pointed out before Sefardi, Ashkenazi and Ethiopian Jews are all genetically distinct.

Concluding, Dr Lebens utterly fails to prove his case as, in 4 out of the 5 of Miller's characteristics, the Jews are not a nation

[King_David]

106. You really need take these posts to the religious group

Or to the Jewish group where they can deal with the more offensive aspects there.

IP is no place to discuss the Jewish religion and certainly no place to critique it.

[intaglio]

109. Dr Lebens inserted religion into the mix

Responding to his points required referencing religion. I suggest you read the article

[King_David]

110. Your "critique" of Judaism religion has no place in IP

[intaglio]

111. I did not "critique" Judaism - I responded to an article claiming the Jews were a nation

An article that used religious foundations to the reasoning to support that claim. There is no critique of religion only of the misuse of religion to support a dubious claim.

Dr Lebens used the quotation “Kol Yisrael areivim zeh ba-zeh," a quote from the Torah, mistranslating it so it fitted his thesis. I corrected it by reference to a well know Jewish education site.

Dr Lebens cites "We were slaves in Egypt" as an example of shared stories, a concept I did not dispute but I did indicate it is a tale with no historical basis.

Dr Lebens used the phrase "make the Desert bloom" which is a modern concept used to belittle the achievements of Palestinian and Arab farmers.

Dr Lebens uses the phrasing "even through our years of exile, we always yearned for our promised land." I just pointed out that Dr Lebens had misused the phrase and cited the well known Jewish saying "Next Year in Jerusalem" as evidence. It is also a matter of fact that not all those who identify as Jews share that yearning. Of course the legend of the exile is a falsehood but that is a matter of history not belief; just as many of the tales about early Islam and Christianity are faith rather than history.

It was Dr Lebens who claimed that "we have a religion," I pointed out that there are many disputes amongst Jews disputes about what that religion is and that quite a lot of Jews do not follow that religion.

[King_David]

123. Take it to the religious group or the Jewish group where I'm sure they will treat it

with deserving contempt and probably not be as polite as I have been.

It's religion and critique of belief and nothing to do with IP whatsoever .

Speaking for my self I am an atheist and even I'm offended.

[intaglio]

125. Explain how I have "critiqued" Jewish religion?

By citing known problems about the history of the Jewish peoples as it is described in the holy books and tradition and hence showing Dr Leben misleads by using these examples?

How have I made a criticism of Jewish faith by showing that Dr Leben misleads in his assertions and in his use of the Holy words?

How is it a critique of Jewish religion to point out that not all those who claim to be Jews follow that religion and that there are various factions within Judaism which regard other factions as being not truly Judaic?

And how in the name of reason does your distaste bear upon the reality of documentary and archaeological evidence?

[shira]

191. Back to the Lancet open letter....

You wrote in your journal regarding the open letter in the Lancet:

If those who claim that aggression by Hamas is unwarranted I suggest they read the full text

Hamas terror is warranted?

Am I misunderstanding you?

[intaglio]

199. Exactly as warranted as Israeli occupation of the Palestinian homeland

... together with the migrations and re-assignment of land that were forced on the Palestinians by the establishment of Israel. Note, I am not blaming the original Jewish settlers for all of this because it was the European powers who wanted this travesty.

The foundation of Israel was the last gasp of a colonialist mindset that considered that any land occupied by brown peoples could be disposed of to any person the colonial powers deemed worthy. The Balfour Declaration was a way of moving the problematic population of Jews from Europe to the Middle East; similar suggestions were made by some Nazis and the French about moving Jewish populations to Madagascar and Indo-China.

The whole of Europe was more or less anti-Semitic but instead of dealing with the source of the problem, the Christian mindset, the Europeans (and the Americans) tried to brush the whole mess under the carpet.

[shira]

204. Look at the links at the bottom of the page about Drs. Ang & Gilbert

See any problem there?

I see that as strong evidence they support terror. The open letter supports terror (resistance). Your statement seemed to support Hamas' actions as "warranted".

Am I wrong?

[intaglio]

209. How many authors in total

and how does that alter the Palestinians and their perceived justification for acts of terror?

[shira]

211. 5 total authors. So?

You don't see the problem with 2 of the authors having views similar to David Duke? Or another who's made it clear he supports terror against innocents?

The letter itself is pro-terror. Do you disagree?

[intaglio]

218. Please do not tell me what I said, I just pointed out there were more signatories than just 2

and for some reason you cannot seem to find evidence against the others.

[shira]

219. So it's not enuff to show how depraved 3 of 5 authors are...

Last edited Tue Sep 30, 2014, 06:29 PM - Edit history (2)

You need evidence that all 5 are unhinged fans of David Duke and/or apologists for Hamas terror?

Really?

Because if not, what did you mean to say?

[shira]

183. Intaglio, were the Jews a people/nation....

....during Israel's first 2 commonwealth periods thousands of years ago?

Yes or No?

If yes, when did Jews "lose" that peoplehood or nation status and WHY?

[intaglio]

200. The Jews were a group of peoples or tribes

Some of them lived in Israel, some of them lived in Samaria, some of them lived in Judea, Nabatea, Idumea, Galilee, all of these were self governing majority Jewish nations; despite the fantasies of the Temple priesthood in Jerusalem. Many other Jews lived in Alexandria, others were in The Decapolis, Phoenecia, Pontus, Abyssinia, Yemen, Greece, Sicily, Byzantium, Scythia, Greece, Libya, Cyrenica, Syrtis, Rome and Mesopotamia.

In the same way there were many nations of Celts in Gaul, Iberia, Germany, the British Isles and many other locations - including a possible "homeland" in China. If you want people to occupy only the lands that they occupied originally then we should all of us move back to Africa.

[shira]

205. They were a nation back in the 1st and 2nd commonwealths, correct? n/t

[intaglio]

210. I have just answered that question

Back in the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE there were several nations of Jews and many more colonies all over the known world. The parallel with the Celts is precise.

[Scootaloo]

153. Only the ones who are racists and fascists. As "NGO monitor" is.

And as usual, you are more interested in PR than human life. I hope that serves you well, Shira.

[shira]

155. 2 of the 5 authors of the open letter are w/o question racists & fascists....

And yet you support their effort.

That open letter absolved Hamas of all blame, calling for a lifting of the blockade w/o also calling for disarming Hamas. It's not surprising to find friends of Hamas and David Duke penning such a letter, but it should be a surprise to find progressives here defending such trash.

[Scootaloo]

156. Actually there's plenty of question about that.

About you and Yitzhak Santis? Not so much, I'm afraid. So again, yes, I'll take the editor of the Lancet, over some joker heading a government-controlled "NGO" and his Harley Quinn wannabe who thinks hamas runs Israel.

And worry about the shit you spend your time defending, Shira.

[shira]

164. No there's not, but yr enthusastic support of this gutter trash is noted. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

23. she also considers israel guilty of ethnic cleansing

for withdrawing the settlements from gaza. you forgot that one.

[shaayecanaan]

24. oh and she thinks that the victims of anders breivik had it coming

because the Labour Party youth conference they were attending was a "terrorist training camp", apparently.

we really do need to make a sticky with some of her more memorable posts.

[shira]

37. Never said they had it coming. n/t

[DanTex]

39. Wow. Smearing the victims of the Breivik shooting. This keeps getting more, umm, interesting.

[shira]

50. Not at all. Google the discussion if you'd like. n/t

[DanTex]

53. Yes at all. I did.

[shira]

56. What did u find? Prove your accusation. n/t

[DanTex]

61. OK. You were defending this mind-bogglingly twisted article

that opens up by slandering the victims of the shooting by saying they were engaged in a "pro-terrorist" program.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/The-Region-The-Oslo-Syndrome

Here's the thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x359919

Lordy. A bunch of kids get shot by a lunatic and your response is to accuse them of aiding terrorism. Yeah, I wouldn't have believed it had I not googled it and seen it with my own eyes.

[shira]

64. You missed the point of the entire article - probably deliberately

The point of the article was to show how wrong it was (and still is) to distinguish b/w bad terrorism (Breivik) and understandable, more acceptable terrorism against Israelis. There are people here and in human rights organizations that make this vile distinction. Norway's ambassador to Israel stated the following:

“We Norwegians consider the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel. Those who believe this will not change their mind because of the attack in Oslo. Can Israel and the Palestinians solve the problems without Hamas? I don’t think so.”

See the problem? Too many people accept terror against Jews committed by genocidal fascists who openly and proudly admit they want to kill Jews.

Ergo, the article. And now you're up to speed. If you don't see the problem, there's no point continuing further. But just in case you do....

....you'll find in that thread that in no way did I ever state they had it coming by Breivik. The author of the OP explicitly stated they did not have it coming. But note how I was accused above of saying they had it coming, or defending such a position. Welcome to DU I/P.



We could go further about whether the kids who were murdered were participating in a pro-terror camp but what's the point? I already know how futile such a discussion will be. You proudly support organizations like HRW and Amnesty that enable and defend Palestinian war crimes (human-shielding, rockets by Fatah).

[DanTex]

74. Oh, I understood the article.

The guy's hatred of Palestinians and anyone who supports their cause is so great that he couldn't wait two weeks before slandering the children who were murdered by a right-wing psychopath as terrorist sympathizers. And then he goes on to blame the incident on the fact that Norway doesn't support Israeli military aggression. It's not very complicated. Insane, yes. Complicated, no.

I wonder what this guy had to say about the Sandy Hook shooting. Something about the kids' coloring books maybe?

[shira]

77. The problem was with the Norwegian ambassador dehumanizing Israelis....

When Israelis and their kids get killed in terror attacks, it's understandable. Norway's kids get killed, that's different, and far worse.

And you're defending that. You don't see how what you're doing dehumanizes Israeli victims of terror. And yet you're all upset at someone else for supposedly doing the same thing you're doing.

BTW, those kids weren't being slandered. But if you disagree, tell me exactly what they were doing on Utoya Island when this happened.

If you want slander, that happened all over the place here at DU when the 3 Israeli kids who were kidnapped and killed were all slandered for being settlers, as though they had it coming. Sound familiar?

[DanTex]

78. I'm not sure what that has to do with smearing a bunch of teens who were murdered.

People's views differ on the I/P conflict, yeah, we know that. Taking that as an excuse to smear murdered teens as terrorist sympathizers is unconscionable.

You'll notice that nobody has smeared the three Israeli teens who were kidnapped and murdered. I don't even know what their political views were and I don't care.

[shira]

79. They weren't smeared. The 3 Israeli kids were definitely smeared....

It happened all over the forums here by anti-Zionists who smeared all 3 kids as settlers.

[DanTex]

80. Calling people terrorist sympathizers is smearing them. Period.

Oh, and you're not the only one you took the opportunity to smear the murdered children because their political views didn't align with yours. Glenn Beck did that too. You're in good company! Not for the first time, I imagine.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jul/26/glenn-beck-norwegian-dead-hitler

[shira]

82. What were they doing on Utoya Island? n/t

[DanTex]

83. "What was she wearing? I'm not saying she was asking to be raped, but..."

What possible difference could it make what they were doing, provided that they weren't hurting anyone. As it happens, they were in some kind of summer camp for politically minded liberal teenagers. Only people like you and Glenn Beck feel that it's appropriate to smear them because they don't share your right-wing political views.

[shira]

85. Be more specific. A political camp for liberal teens is nice....

No one sane would have a problem with that.

So what in particular were they doing? Do you even know?

[DanTex]

86. I don't know or care what they were doing beyond the fact that they were teens at a camp.

You're right that no sane person would have a problem with that. The people who care are you and Glenn Beck. Obviously, they made some kind of statement about I/P that you disagree with, that much I figured out.

The real question is, why bring this up and accuse them of aiding terrorism weeks after they were murdered? What possible motivation would anyone have to slander innocent victims like that?

[shira]

88. So you're upset about something you either know nothing about....

...nor do you care to know.

Great talk.

[DanTex]

89. Not upset. I'm shocked that you and Glenn Beck would smear innocent shooting victims

simply because they had a political difference of opinion from you. It's a telling glimpse into the ideology that you two share.

As you pointed out, no sane person would do this. And as you noticed, the rest of the I/P board was pretty shocked too.

[shira]

90. I'm not smearing anyone, but do u notice how you always....

...resort to labeling your opponent as rightwing? We have others here who do little else besides labeling their opponents racists, and they believe that passes as rational discourse.

You lose the argument each and every time you deflect by going all ad-hominem.

[DanTex]

91. Of course you are. You are calling innocent shooting victors terrorist enablers.

What is that if not a smear?

As to who "loses the argument" -- this is the internet, everyone thinks they "win". So enjoy your fantasy.

[shira]

93. Where did I call them that? n/t

[DanTex]

94. In that thread I linked to.

You defended an article that called them that, and you even went on to give your own explanation as to why the right-wing lunatic who wrote that actually was right. Crazy stuff, I know.

You're going to deny this now? LOL.

[shira]

96. So I never called them that. Further....

...the author of that article didn't call them that either. Moreover, he's not rightwing and has always associated with Israel's left, or better center-left. I understand that many here love to point out that anyone not a radical anti-zionist is rightwing, but come on...

Just more ad-hominems from you. Are you capable of anything better?

[DanTex]

97. Yes, you did, and so did the author.

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

It's kinda funny that you have now transitioned from defending the smear to trying to back away from it.

Oh, and your claims to not be right-wing would be a lot more credible if not for your habit of incessantly posting OP from far-right-wing sources like John Bolton.

[shira]

98. No, I didn't. But go ahead and try proving it...

I still defend the author's article. He's not saying what you claim he said.

If we're going to assume people are rightwing based on the articles they post or groups they agree with, then I can argue you're far more rightwing than John Bolton. Wanna go there?

ETA:

Check this thread out and all the anti-Israel folks here defending the Lancet, despite their publication of a letter written by admirers of David Duke. Doesn't get more rightwing...

[DanTex]

99. "The youth camp he attacked was engaged in what was essentially...

...(though the campers didn’t see it that way, no doubt) a pro-terrorist program."

Good luck explaining that one away. Imagine, you're a parent, you send your kid to camp, he gets murdered by some crazy right-wing terrorist, then you open the newspaper and some nutjob is accusing your murdered child of being pro-terrorist.

I would have thought that not smearing murdered teenagers like this was a universal law of civility, but I guess that's where you and I differ.

As far as your habit of linking to right-wing sources, if you want, sure, explain yet again how Amnesty International is further to the right than John Bolton. It will just make you look even more ridiculous than you already do, and I'm always in the mood for a good laugh.

[shira]

104. That's a true statement but it's not an attack on the youth...

Last edited Fri Sep 26, 2014, 09:25 AM - Edit history (2)

He didn't smear them. He rightly criticized the vile program they were participating in. Rubin made it clear the campers didn't see themselves doing anything wrong. He was also making a bigger point, demonstrating that what happened was the exact opposite of Stockholm syndrome.

Amnesty ignores and thereby condones Hamas human-shielding and child combatants. They've done the same by ignoring Fatah rocket attacks. Defending fascist organizations' war crimes go well beyond anything John Bolton has ever done. And you support Amnesty. You read all those accounts of Palestinians being shot for refusing to be human shields, but Amnesty defends Hamas - not Gazan victims of Hamas who desperately need the help. Supporting Amnesty's defense for Hamas is acting against Palestinians. I doubt John Bolton would approve of this, but Amnesty does and so do its blind supporters. It's heinously rightwing to support and defend a fascist organization like Hamas, which stands for everything progressives and liberals are against.

Not only that, as we can see in this thread there's a LOT of support here for a publication like the Lancet that gives voice to KKK (David Duke) ditto-heads who hate seeing Jews defending themselves from Hamas fascists. As nutty as John Bolton is, he's not as extreme rightwing and fascist as that.

[DanTex]

107. It's a false statement and it is obviously a smear. "Pro-terrorist" is a smear, period.

It's a common smear among right-wingers is to call anyone who criticizes Israel "pro-terrorist" or "anti-semitic". What makes it all the more reprehensible here is that the people being smears. Whatever idiotic point this guy was trying to make, surely he could have made it without smearing murdered teenagers. But he didn't. Because the hate and the craziness among the rabid Israel apologists runs so deep that even innocent children are fair game for slander.

And you're defending him.

Amnesty comprehensively investigates crimes by all parties, and they have documented many such crimes by both. Unlike the right-wing media, which completely ignores Israel's crimes. Isolated anecdotes reported by the right-wing media don't "prove" that Amnesty is "biased" and it is laughable that you think so. I know that your favorite tactic is to post some grainy unsubstantiated youtube video from some right-winger's channel and say "SEE! LOOK!" but this is pointless. Obviously, there will be individual instances that they won't report -- far more such crimes by Israel, of course, since Israel does the lion's share of the killing. For example, if Amnesty were to interview every single Palestinian who Israel left homeless, they would have to conduct some 50,000 or so interviews. So there are a lot of Palestinians whose homes were destroyed, indeed a lot of Palestinians who were killed unlawfully by IDF, who won't appear individually by name in an Amnesty investigation. This is obvious, why I need to keep explaining it is a little odd.

The fact that you believe what comes out of John Bolton's think tank more than what comes out of respected human rights groups like Amnesty says a lot about your inability to assess the situation rationally.

Why is it that you keep posting links to right-wing sources? You still haven't explained that. I'd appreciate an answer.

[shira]

113. We'll have to agree to disagree about the smear....

I think it was wrong to smear the 3 kidnapped/murdered Israeli teens, but you disagree. I also think it's wrong to dehumanize Israeli terror victims by "understanding" the terror leading to their murders. Imagine understanding the Norway teens murders.

As for Amnesty...

You were shown at least 6-8 different sources (most of which were not rightwing) demonstrating Hamas forced civilians to be human shields. Amnesty is deliberately ignoring all this. In no way can it be said that Amnesty is standing up for innocent Gazans. They are clearly siding with and defending Hamas. It doesn't get more rightwing than this. They're also silent about Fatah's rocket launches at Israeli civilians, despite the many non-rightwing sources provided for you. So they're very clearly siding with the Palestinians' fascist leadership, not with Palestinians in general, or innocent Palestinians. How do you get more rightwing than taking Amnesty's stance here?

Ironically, you're participating in a thread in which your fellow "pro" Palestinian colleagues here are defending the Lancet publicizing David Duke KKK anti-Jewish propaganda. How much more rightwing does it get than that? If the Lancet will publish his cheerleaders and fans, what's to stop them from publishing his own open letter about Palestinians being oppressed by Jews? There's no difference.

Bolton is w/o question rightwing and nutty to boot. But he doesn't come close to approaching the level of rightwing douchebaggery that Amnesty exhibits. It's ANTI-Palestinian to side with Hamas against Gazans forcibly used as human shields. A person would have to absolutely hate Palestinians in order to support such a stance. Unless you have evidence Bolton hates Palestinians MORE than those who side with Hamas to get them killed, you're gonna have a helluva time proving Bolton is more rightwing and pro-fascist than Amnesty.

I don't see the point to answering your last question (although I will) when I've supplied you with many NON-rightwing sources that validate Mudar Zahran's interviews with Gazans. If you had evidence showing that Zahran has lied before and isn't credible, you'd have a point. You'd even have a point if you could prove he's a rightwing douchebag. Otherwise, it appears all you're attempting to do here is deflect from Hamas war crimes, even though you've claimed multiple times that in no way would you ever defend Hamas. I didn't provide any rightwing sources for the Fatah rockets either, but you attempted to deflect by claiming I did. But to answer you; the reason I post anything from any source I use is b/c to my knowledge the source is honest and accurate. If not, I don't use them. It's that simple. If there are other sources that verify the story, I'm not worried about the OP being rightwing propaganda. Facts are facts. Why is this so difficult for you?

[DanTex]

118. We'll probably have to agree to disagree about a lot of things.

But let the record state that you insist that calling murdered teenagers "pro-terrorist" (a week after they were murdered) is not a smear.

Sorry, your google/youtube dumps don't "demonstrate" anything. Anyone can go and find alleged instances of events committed by either IDF or Hamas or some other party that aren't explicitly covered in a given Amnesty investigation. There are many reasons why this could occur (e.g. Amnesty couldn't substantiate them, or they didn't substantially alter the conclusions, or they weren't aware of them, they don't have the manpower to interview every single witness in all of Gaza, etc.). The very least likely possibility is that Amnesty is "deliberately ignoring" them and "siding with Hamas". The "siding with Hamas" theory is particularly nutty in light of the fact that Amnesty has repeatedly accused Hamas of war crimes.

Not only is your accusation lacking even a trace of evidence, but the other major human rights groups investigating have generally come to similar conclusions. Investigations by Amnesty, HRW, and others are the most thorough and credible sources of information on what actually happened --- more so than reports from the media, and far more than the right-wing crap you post.

What you are alleging is that they are all conspiring against Israel, either independently or as part of some uber-conspiracy. There is no evidence for this, nor is there any motive. If anything, their biases would be pro-Israel, since they are Western in orientation and share more in common with Israelis than Palestinians.


As for your excuse for right-wing sources, first of all, don't pretend that John Bolton is the only right-wing source you use. Right-wing sources for you are habitual, bordering on addiction. For example, there was that Daily Mail OP you wrote claiming that Hamas "admitted" to using human shields, whereas what Hamas actually did was "deny" (that's the opposite of "admit&quot using human shields.

The reason why you do this is obvious. It's because non-right-wing sources don't say what you want them to say. If you found anyone other than John Bolton or the Daily Mail that presented the facts as misleadingly as you wanted them too, you obviously wouldn't blow your credibility by repeatedly posting right-wing links on a Democratic message board.

Your defense of Mudar Zarhan also fails. There aren't many reasons a person would associate themselves and write for John Bolton's think tank. One is that he feels an ideological kinship with Bolton. The other is that he can't get published anywhere else. Neither speaks well for what he's writing. As it turns out, he actually believes that Palestine should cede the whole West Bank to Israel and use Jordan as their state. Wow. Is even John Bolton that crazy?

[shira]

119. See, there you go again making shit up...

But let the record state that you insist that calling murdered teenagers "pro-terrorist" (a week after they were murdered) is not a smear.

No one called murdered teens "pro-terrorist". Not the author of that OP, nor myself. So once again you're making shit up and you're now smearing me with bullshit.

Sorry, your google/youtube dumps don't "demonstrate" anything. Anyone can go and find alleged instances of events committed by either IDF or Hamas or some other party that aren't explicitly covered in a given Amnesty investigation. There are many reasons why this could occur (e.g. Amnesty couldn't substantiate them, or they didn't substantially alter the conclusions, or they weren't aware of them, they don't have the manpower to interview every single witness in all of Gaza, etc.). The very least likely possibility is that Amnesty is "deliberately ignoring" them and "siding with Hamas". The "siding with Hamas" theory is particularly nutty in light of the fact that Amnesty has repeatedly accused Hamas of war crimes.

Not only is your accusation lacking even a trace of evidence, but the other major human rights groups investigating have generally come to similar conclusions. Investigations by Amnesty, HRW, and others are the most thorough and credible sources of information on what actually happened --- more so than reports from the media, and far more than the right-wing crap you post.

What you are alleging is that they are all conspiring against Israel, either independently or as part of some uber-conspiracy. There is no evidence for this, nor is there any motive. If anything, their biases would be pro-Israel, since they are Western in orientation and share more in common with Israelis than Palestinians.

How lame.

You've seen the evidence about Gazans being forced to be shields. It goes further than that, because as HRW admits on its own website human-shielding does not always require force....

Forces deployed in populated areas must avoid locating military objectives – including fighters, ammunition and weapons -- in or near densely populated areas, and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Belligerents are prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack. "Shielding" refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military forces or areas immune from attack.

There's 100x more evidence of the above happening in Gaza. Let's see your excuse for Amnesty ignoring all that. There's video evidence of rockets being fired from dense civilian populations as well as Hamas admitting (in Arabic) that they use human-shields. HRW and Amnesty deny it all.

You're attempting to defend the indefensible. You're shitting all over innocent Gazans being used by Hamas fascists, whom you're defending. What other way is there to see this?

Now what's interesting is that the US will soon face the same human-shielding by ISIL. There are a few reports out there already of this happening and it's only going to get worse with time. You can bet your ass there is going to be a helluva lot of interest in all the human-shielding ISIL forces are involved in. Then we'll really have something to discuss, won't we? Let's see HRW and Amnesty ignore that. If they ignore it, they lose all credibility. Once they report it, we get to compare what they reported WRT Hamas. The gig is up.

As for your excuse for right-wing sources, first of all, don't pretend that John Bolton is the only right-wing source you use. Right-wing sources for you are habitual, bordering on addiction. For example, there was that Daily Mail OP you wrote claiming that Hamas "admitted" to using human shields, whereas what Hamas actually did was "deny" (that's the opposite of "admit&quot using human shields.

The reason why you do this is obvious. It's because non-right-wing sources don't say what you want them to say. If you found anyone other than John Bolton or the Daily Mail that presented the facts as misleadingly as you wanted them too, you obviously wouldn't blow your credibility by repeatedly posting right-wing links on a Democratic message board.

Your defense of Mudar Zarhan also fails. There aren't many reasons a person would associate themselves and write for John Bolton's think tank. One is that he feels an ideological kinship with Bolton. The other is that he can't get published anywhere else. Neither speaks well for what he's writing. As it turns out, he actually believes that Palestine should cede the whole West Bank to Israel and use Jordan as their state. Wow. Is even John Bolton that crazy?

Your problem isn't with the sources, it's with the facts. Other non-rightwing sources report or validate the OP's I post. You ignore them b/c the facts simply do not matter to you. So you resort to deflecting via ad-hominem. It's boring, but moreover it's anti-intellectual. Unless you have evidence the facts are false, there's no reason not to discuss these issues rationally. You fear doing that and it's why you attack the messenger. How lame.

[DanTex]

134. Sorry, but "pro-terrorist" is a direct quote. You're not getting away from it.

As for the rest, call me "lame" is obviously what you do when you can't come up with a cogent rebuttal. Sorry, that doesn't work.

You have no evidence whatsoever that Amnesty or any other groups are intentionally ignoring evidence to paint one side or the other as the villain. You also have no motive. You also overlook the fact that what you are describing is an implausible grand conspiracy among the world's leading human rights groups. You also overlook the fact that Amnesty repeatedly has found Hamas guilty of war crimes. Etc. Like I said, you basically ignored everything I wrote.

Obviously, your problem is not that Amnesty ignores evidence, but that they don't come to the same conclusion as you would like them to. Not surprising. You are about as extremely anti-Palestinian as they come, and you would like to see Israel absolved of responsibility for the crimes they commit. And human rights groups don't give you what you want.

As for the right-wing sources, it's obvious that the reason you keep linking to them is that non-right-wing sources don't say what you want them to. Otherwise you wouldn't need to look to John Bolton. Nobody would be dumb enough to link to John Bolton when there was someone progressive making the same argument.

If you disagree, you can prove me wrong by agreeing to not link to any more right-wing sources. After all, you say that there are non-right-wing sources that back up the facts. If that's true, prove it by just sticking to the non-right wing sources from now on. Deal? (I didn't think so LOL).

If you want to continue this conversation, you're going to have to go back and address the points I already made. Typing them over and over again just for you to ignore them is getting to be a waste of time.

[shira]

150. He said the youth were engaged in a pro-terrorist program....

He didn't call them pro-terrorist.

In fact anyone, including Amnesty Int'l, who calls for a lifting of the blockade w/o disarming or weakening Hamas terror capabilities is essentially engaged in pro-terrorist activity whether they know it or not. There is no other way of looking at this, as Iran, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS also support an end to the blockade. They all want Hamas empowered with enhanced terror capabilities that they support (due to believing "resistance" against occupation via terror is legitimate).

You called me anti-Palestinian, but wanting Hamas neutralized is actually a PRO-Palestinian position. Anyone wanting Hamas strengthened is anti-Palestinian. How am I wrong?

[DanTex]

160. People not blinded by hatred are able to discuss contentious issues like I/P without resorting

to vicious smears like calling murdered teenagers "engaged in pro-terrorist activities" one week after they were murdered. If a group of teens who happened to make a pro-Israel statement were murdered and someone immediately called them "pro-war-crimes" or "pro-massacre" or whatever, what would you be saying then? Lemme guess...

Splitting hairs over what "pro-terrorist" means in this context is a useless diversion. Of course it's false, but that's besides the point. And, really, "engaged in a pro-terrorist program" is in a way a worse smear because it implies active support for terrorism rather than just passively being "pro-terrorist".

In the end, the fact that you can't recognize this smear for what it is tells more about you and the author than anything else.

[shira]

167. You missed the entire point of that OP about reverse Stockholm Syndrome

The point wasn't to smear teens.

And if you can't see how lifting the blockade empowers Hamas and makes future wars MORE likely, then there's no point continuing. That kind of activism mirrors that of the Iranian regime and ultimately hurts Palestinians at the mercy of Hamas extremists. It's pro-Hamas, anti-Palestinian. It's clear-cut and indefensible.

[DanTex]

169. Then why smear the teens? Just as a side bonus?

The "reverse Stockholm Syndrome" argument is idiotic in my opinion, but that's really besides the point. What matters is that it could have been made easily without smearing murdered teenagers. The argument was that the European Left accepts terrorism against Israel but not against its own people, and by accepting terrorism against Israel, this is what gave Breivik the idea that terrorism could be a successful tactic. Get rid of the part about the murdered teenagers being engaged in pro-terrorist activities, and what's left is just a garden variety nonsensical anti-Palestinian screed.

Sure, smear ambassadors, presidents, journalists, whoever, that happens all the time. Opening the article by smearing murdered teenagers is what gives insight into the hatred that pervades the author's worldview.

[shira]

171. Is it a smear if it's true? How should someone report this.....

...if the camp they attended really was pro-terror?

[DanTex]

174. Of course it's a smear. It's not "true", at best it's a difference of opinion.

Last edited Sun Sep 28, 2014, 01:36 PM - Edit history (3)

And it's also entirely peripheral to the point that the author is trying to make.

It's purely a cheap-shot, motivated by the author's hatred towards anyone who sympathizes with the Palestinian cause. Hatred so deep that he couldn't wait a week before smearing murdered children.


The author's (and your) defense of the smear is that the unintended consequences of a policy that the murdered kids were advocating for would be an increase in terror attacks. This isn't a "pro-terrorist program" because being "pro-" something requires viewing that thing as a worthy objective.

No doubt the kids would have disagreed with the author's argument that lifting the blockade would result in more terror attacks. (Conveniently for the author, they can't defend themselves from the smear, having been murdered). But even if the kids were wrong about this, it's still not "pro-terror", it would only be the kids not thinking things through fully (they were, after all, kids). Oh, and even if the kids did agree that one of the consequences was more terror attacks, that still wouldn't make it "pro-terror", so long as they felt that the increase in terror was an evil which would be outweighed by the benefits of easing of humanitarian conditions in Gaza.

The only way this would be a "pro-terror program" is if the kids agreed that the policy would result in more terror, and viewed this increase in terror as a good thing. Obviously, I don't even think you believe that to be the case.

[shira]

186. It's not merely a difference of opinion....

And to prove it:

Do you support lifting the blockade while leaving the fascists of Hamas fully in power, with the ability to arm themselves to the hilt?

I can assure you that BDS'ers, anti-zionists, and fascist friends of Hamas would definitely answer that question in the affirmative.

[DanTex]

187. I said it's at best a difference of opinion. That's being generous. It's actually false.

Again, you're ignoring my entire post. My opinion on lifting the blockade is irrelevant, and obviously the way you ask the question is leading. We can debate the wisdom of lifting the blockade at another time. I could just as easily ask you if you favor a blockade that condemns the children of Gaza to a life of poverty and malnutrition, and when you answer "yes" accuse you of being pro-child-starvation. IKind of a silly game, don't you agree?

Here, I'll cut and paste for you. Let's see if you even attempt to respond this time. If you don't, then I'll take that as an admission that you're wrong.

The author's (and your) defense of the smear is that the unintended consequences of a policy that the murdered kids were advocating for would be an increase in terror attacks. This isn't a "pro-terrorist program" because being "pro-" something requires viewing that thing as a worthy objective.

No doubt the kids would have disagreed with the author's argument that lifting the blockade would result in more terror attacks. (Conveniently for the author, they can't defend themselves from the smear, having been murdered). But even if the kids were wrong about this, it's still not "pro-terror", it would only be the kids not thinking things through fully (they were, after all, kids). Oh, and even if the kids did agree that one of the consequences was more terror attacks, that still wouldn't make it "pro-terror", so long as they felt that the increase in terror was an evil which would be outweighed by the benefits of easing of humanitarian conditions in Gaza.

The only way this would be a "pro-terror program" is if the kids agreed that the policy would result in more terror, and viewed this increase in terror as a good thing. Obviously, I don't even think you believe that to be the case.

[shira]

189. It's not false when you realize what Hamas is all about....

Their charter calls for Israel's destruction and the mass murder of Jews. They will never stop. Their entire history in Gaza BEFORE the blockade and DURING is an indicator of what they'd be like AFTER its lifting, without disarming or being severely hindered in their terror capabilities. There is NO evidence indicating that an end to the blockade will result in a nicer, friendlier Hamas that will NOT take the opportunity to become more dangerous in its terror capabilities.

I challenge you to find one organization calling for the lifting of the blockade that is dependent on Hamas being cut down to size. You won't find it, therefore what's being promoted is pro-terror advocacy, in effect if not in intent.

The author's (and your) defense of the smear is that the unintended consequences of a policy that the murdered kids were advocating for would be an increase in terror attacks. This isn't a "pro-terrorist PROGRAM" because being "pro-" something requires viewing that thing as a worthy objective.

This is nonsense. There are people affiliated with racist or bigoted organizations. They may not see themselves that way at all and they may have the best of intentions but the unintended consequences would in effect, if not in intent, be racist or bigoted. Such people would be affiliated with a racist program. Call it "pro-" racist...

[DanTex]

196. What matters here is what "pro-terror" means.

I don't need convincing that Hamas is bad. But you have a peculiar belief that writing a few paragraphs about how bad Hamas is absolves you of the need to obey the laws of logic. That doesn't work.

Shall we go to the dictionary? Here's what I find.

pro-
a prefix indicating favor for some party, system, idea, etc., without identity with the group (pro-British; pro-Communist; proslavery), having anti- as its opposite.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro-

Notice "favor". Unless the kids actually had a favorable view of terrorism (they obviously did not), then they aren't pro-terror. For example, here are some of the ways that they could have not been pro-terror:
- they just didn't consider the consequences of the blockade with respect to terrorism
- they disagree with you about whether lifting the blockade would have resulted in more terrorism
- they agree that lifting the blockade would have resulted in more terrorism, but viewed this as an unfortunate consequence
The only way they would be "pro-terror" is if they actually thought that more terrorism was a good thing, and that's why they wanted the blockade lifted.

For fun, we can explore some of the absurdities that would result from your bizarro definition of the prefix "pro-". For example
- If I go to the doctor for allergies, who recommends a pill that has drowsiness as a side-effect, is the doctor "pro-drowsiness"?
- Israel's offensive in Gaza resulted in more expressions of anti-semitism and hate crimes. Does this mean Israel is "pro-hate-crimes"?
And so on. Are we having fun yet?

At best, an honest critic of the murdered kids could have called them "shortsighted". Of course, even this hypothetical honest critic, if endowed with the slightest trace of human decency, would have refrained from attacking a bunch of kids a week after they were murdered. It would be like making fun of the Sandy Hook shooting victims for believing in Santa Claus. But calling them "pro-terror" is even worse than that.

[shira]

201. The organization was "essentially pro-terror", not the teens...

We'ver been over this before and you keep misrepresenting what the author stated.

Are you deliberately doing that? He never called the teens pro-terror and made it clear they probably didn't see the camp as pro-terror.

You're grasping at straws.

[DanTex]

206. So do you have a competing definition of "pro-"?

Because if not, and you can't show that anyone had a favorable view of terrorism, then this argument is over.

Oh, and he didn't use the word "organization." He said that the camp was involved in a "pro-terrorist program". And the evidence for this a statement that the teens released. A vicious and false smear, period. He's not sliding on a technicality -- if that's what he's trying to do, then he's a grotesque human being who takes pleasure in finding excuses to smear murdered children by association.

[shira]

212. The program was "essentially pro-terror"

....though the teens didn't see it that way, no doubt. There's no smear involved.

You made a mistake stating that the author called the teens pro-terror. He did nothing of the sort.

Own up to it.

[DanTex]

217. So you don't have a competing definition of "pro-".

Well, that settles it. The teens weren't pro-terror, nor was the program that they were engaging in, nor was there anything remotely pro-terror about the camp or the statement they made or anything else (save for the the guy that killed them all).

The author could have made his twisted argument without smearing the murdered teenagers, but he chose the low road. Shame on him.

[shira]

220. If you cannot acknowledge how at least 2 of the 5 authors....

Last edited Tue Sep 30, 2014, 06:31 PM - Edit history (1)

....of the open letter are terror apologists or supporters, and you're going to continue to give them the benefit of the doubt, then there's no amount of evidence or reasoning that will ever convince you about people, organizations, or camps that are apologists for, defenders of, or pro-terrorist.

[DanTex]

227. The two groups of people are totally unrelated (obviously).

Those two authors are forwarding hate speech videos. If the kids at Utoya were watching David Duke videos, you'd have a point. But they weren't. There was nothing pro-terrorist whatsoever there.

[DanTex]

162. You didn't respond to my no-right-wing-sources challenge.

How about it? If it is true what you claim, that everything that you post from right-wing sources can also be found from credible non-right-wing media outlets, then there should be no reason for you to keep linking to right-wingers. Deal? What gives?

[shira]

170. If the SPLC can link to "rightwing sources" and go with it....

...then that works for me. They didn't wait for another source and you know why? All that was reported could be easily confirmed.

[DanTex]

173. You're dodging the question. Why not stick to non-right-wing sources if it is really true

that the content of your OPs can be found there?

There are only two reasons.
1) You like the right-wing slant.
2) You are lying, and the content of your OPs cannot be found outside right-wing media.

Which one is it?

[shira]

120. Dan, here's an Amnesty quote about Hamas we can rationally discuss....

Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks. In previous conflicts Amnesty International has documented that Palestinian armed groups have stored munitions in and fired indiscriminate rockets from residential areas in the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law. Reports have also emerged during the current conflict of Hamas urging residents to ignore Israeli warnings to evacuate. However, these calls may have been motivated by a desire to minimize panic and displacement, in any case, such statements are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment. Under international humanitarian law even if “human shields” are being used Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still APPLY.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israelgaza-conflict-questions-and-answers-2014-07-25

What they are describing in bold is human-shielding, correct? Remember, they claim no evidence of human shields. What I'm asking you is whether what they are describing in bold can be defined as human-shielding by Hamas. Remember what HRW wrote about human-shields...

Forces deployed in populated areas must avoid locating military objectives – including fighters, ammunition and weapons -- in or near densely populated areas, and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Belligerents are prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack. "Shielding" refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military forces or areas immune from attack.

Now compare what's in bold to HRW above.

Notice in the last couple lines, Amnesty doesn't acknowledge all the evidence pointing to Hamas "directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as "human shields". We both know that's a fucking lie.

=======

Last but not least, that headline about Hamas admitting to human shields wasn't a lie b/c what they described meets the definition of human-shielding, correct? Let's see if we can at least agree about what constitutes human-shielding before moving on...

[DanTex]

135. You're ignoring the sentences that aren't bolded.

Although I'm glad you brought this excerpt up, because it once again disproves your repeated claims that Amnesty ignores evidence to try and paint Hamas in a good light.

Let's check out the non-bolded sentences:

However, these calls may have been motivated by a desire to minimize panic and displacement, in any case, such statements are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment.

This is obviously true -- the intent of the calls matters. These events may have constituted intentional human shielding, or they may have been trying to minimize panic and displacement.

And now the more important sentence:

Under international humanitarian law even if “human shields” are being used Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still APPLY.

This is also obviously true. Even if this were human shielding, it doesn't change Israel's obligations to protect civilians. This is the part you have a the biggest problem with, because your whole goal here is to absolve Israel of the responsibility for the civilians they kill. As Amnesty and others documented extensively, Israel has systematically committed war crimes, and the "human shield" question doesn't change that.

Also, your ideological counterparts on the anti-Israeli side would have the same problem with Amnesty's meticulous and fact-based approach to drawing conclusions. To them, it is "obvious" that Israel just wants to commit genocide. But Amnesty won't give them what they want either.

That's what makes groups like Amnesty so important. They ignore the screaming extremists on either side and focus on the facts.

[shira]

151. You didn't answer whether what's in bold was the def'n of human shields....

1. Also, do you honestly believe - and be deadly serious now - that Hamas' calls for Gazans to stay inside their homes demonstrated their desire to minimize panic and displacement? Really? If so, do u think there's a 90% chance of that actually being true, maybe less than 1%, other?

2. I don't have a problem with Israeli obligations under IHL and being held accountable for such. What I'm showing you is that Amnesty is going out of its way to defend Hamas, and you're blindly following them.

[DanTex]

161. Sure, that's an adequate definition. There are also others, as we've seen.

1) I believe a lot of things. I believe Hamas intentionally uses civilians as human shields. I believe that Israel intentionally inflicts violence and suffering on Palestinians. I believe that both sides (more specifically, the groups that have taken power on both sides) have come to view the other as sub-human, and I believe their actions reflect this.

Here's the thing. Amnesty does not and cannot use the same standards of proof that I use in forming opinions. They are not issuing opinions, they are issuing factual reports about violations of IHL that can be documented. As a general rule, you can go through an Amnesty report and whenever they equivocate about the severity of a particular crime, my opinion is probably going to be that it is the more severe of the options given.

That's what makes Amnesty and other groups valuable. They are on the ground, documenting events as they occur.

2) Oh, but you do. The whole point of your attacks on human rights groups is so that when they document Israeli war crimes you can dismiss them as not credible.

[shira]

168. I agree it's adequate but it goes to show how HRW and Amnesty....

.....are deliberately ignoring Hamas' war crimes. We both know Hamas is unquestionably guilty of using populated areas for military purposes, whether or not the people are forced. There's literally MOUNTAINS of evidence for this. Not only that but HRW and Amnesty are on record admitting it happens. They fall short of calling it human shields, however.

You and I both agree Hamas intentionally uses civilians as human shields, but HRW and Amnesty are going out of their way to deny it and thus they are defending Hamas fascists.

But it's worse. They support Hamas AGAINST the unfortunate Gazan victims of their human-shielding. THIS is why I don't trust a word they say on Israel. Anyone supporting Hamas AGAINST Palestinians cannot be trusted in their criticism of Israel.

[DanTex]

172. Again, they're not ignoring anything. They have reported Hamas using populated areas for

military purposes many times. The very excerpt you just posted is an example of this. So the "ignoring war crimes" claim is provably false.

I sometimes wonder if you are reading my posts at all. Remember the part about how the standards of evidence that Amnesty uses are (for good reason) different from the standards that I use in forming opinions? The reality is that Amnesty is sticking to verifiable facts, and doing a good job of that. That's what they should be doing.

And that's the reason why you don't like them. Because you want to deny facts.

[shira]

184. Fine, they're denying human-shielding that even you acknowledge...

You're a non-expert and you're convinced Hamas deliberately uses Gazans as human-shields. You've seen all the evidence for yourself that Amnesty is denying.

[DanTex]

188. Nope. They're not denying human shields.

They're saying that human shields are a possibility but not definitively proven by the evidence on the ground. And, again, they are similarly circumspect in the conclusions they draw with respect to Israel's crimes.

I'm a non-expert and, more importantly, not a human rights group, so I don't have the same burden of proof and evidence as Amnesty in forming my opinions. I'm glad that Amnesty is as meticulous as they are. It gives them more credibility, not less. My opinion is that the circumstantial evidence and statements from leaders on either sides support the conclusion that in most cases when Amnesty equivocates about the severity of certain crimes (on either side), the severity is actually the greater of the possibilities that Amnesty considers.

[shira]

190. You're convinced by evidence that Amnesty has available to them....

They, however, deny it.

They are NOT similarly careful to label Israel actions as war crimes as they OFTEN assign malicious intent to the IDF. Not so WRT Hamas intention even though Hamas proudly admits their war crimes and vile intentions.

Amnesty even made up excuses for Hamas, claiming civilians "had nowhere to go" to escape IDF attacks on Hamas targets:

The Israeli military said that Shuja’iyyeh, a densely populated area with some 92,000 residents east of Gaza City, had been targeted because it was a “fortress” housing rockets, tunnels and command centres. Israeli military and government officials have repeatedly said that civilians were warned to evacuate the area days before it was attacked.

However, many civilians in Shuja’iyyeh and other areas did not evacuate because they had nowhere to go. All the UNRWA schools and other facilities opened as shelters are overflowing. Issuing warnings to evacuate entire areas does not absolve Israeli forces of their obligations to protect civilians under international humanitarian law.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israelgaza-attacks-medical-facilities-and-civilians-add-war-crime-allegations-2014-07-21

That's bullcrap and you know it. They're not even claiming "Hamas says" they have nowhere to go. They're actually making excuses for Hamas.

[DanTex]

197. Do you not understand about different standards of proof?

Amnesty can't just publish things because "they think so". The reason that they have the reputation they have is precisely because they are so meticulous in gathering facts and drawing conclusions. If they used the same standards as pundits or politicians (or random people on the internet) when making war crimes accusations, they would cease to be Amnesty International. I've pointed out that my personal opinion is that the severity of the crimes committed by both sides often exceeds the pronouncements made by Amnesty. And I'm glad that they are cautious. That makes them more credible, not less.


I also don't see what the objection is to that passage. Did it ever occur to you that, umm, the UNRWA schools and other shelters actually were overflowing? Or do you think that Amnesty just made that up?

[shira]

202. Do you?

You don't just believe Hamas uses human shields deliberately because "you think so". You've seen enough evidence that convinced you. Not so for Amnesty. And it's not because they're careful. In no way are they as careful assigning malicious intent to Israeli actions as they are to Hamas. They've been wrong plenty of times when they've accused Israel of the worst before, stating there was no military purpose for an attack when it was actually proven afterwards that there was. With Hamas, they go out of their way to defend them.

Israel gave people DAYS to leave the area and you've seen more than enough evidence that Hamas wanted them STAYING exactly where they were. There is also PLENTY of open area in Gaza for citizens to flee towards.

[DanTex]

208. Of course. That's why I understand that my standards differ from Amnesty's.

I think we're starting to reach the "agree to disagree" stage. I draw my conclusions based on my overall understanding of the situation, circumstantial evidence, history, statements of leaders, other things that Hamas or IDF have done, etc. Amnesty looks at the facts on the ground, they can't make assumptions like I can.

If Amnesty tells me that a certain shelter was full, or that there isn't enough evidence to conclusively prove that human shields were used in a certain battle, I'm not going to argue with them or fault them, because they have a lot more information than me, and they have to justify their conclusions more meticulously than I do.

It's not very complicated. I'm not a human rights organization. I don't need to back up every one of my statements by gathering first-hand evidence in the form of interviews and videos etc. Amnesty doesn't accuse Israel of "ethnic cleansing" or "apartheid", for example, whereas I think there is evidence to support both of these charges. It goes both ways.

Again, the reason you think Amnesty is biased is because your views fall on an extreme end of the continuum, and you think that anyone whose views differ from yours must be motivated by dishonesty or bias or anti-semitism. But you're wrong about that.

Besides, what motive would Amnesty have for taking sides? None. Same goes for HRW and the rest of the organizations that you routinely attack. Your conspiracy theory just doesn't add up.

[shira]

213. Amnesty has accused Israel of ethnic cleansing and apartheid....

They have also accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians.

At the same time they have gone out of their way to defend Hamas actions. They're beyond careful with Hamas but they let it fly against Israel.

Their motive is simple. They are politically compromised far Leftwing fringe activists. I'm not sure there's any amount of evidence I can bring to the table to prove it to you, but there's plenty out there.

[DanTex]

215. Really? I haven't seen that from them.

When I search Amnesty's website for ethnic cleansing I mostly get links ISIS and Central African Republic. Apartheid brings up links about South Africa. I'll take your word that they have done it on occasion, but obviously not as much as many pro-Palestinian activists would like.

I've given examples about them being cautious about assigning intent to Israel's actions, for example, pointing out that certain events could be seen as either deliberate targeting of civilians or else acting with disregard for the lives of civilians, either of which would be violations of international law. Obviously, in some cases, like if soldiers shoot a fleeing civilians (or if Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately at civilian areas in Israel), then accusations of deliberate violence against civilians would be justified. I guess we agree to disagree here -- I just don't see the evidence that Amnesty and others are doing something other than reporting the facts as they uncover and verify them.

I also don't for a second buy the theory that they are compromised by the far left fringe. And the other human rights groups too? Are you sure that by "far left fringe" you don't just mean anyone who cares about human rights? And if it was really the far left fringe, wouldn't they also be covering up for other countries too? By far the obvious explanation here is that the biased party is you, and not the world's leading human rights groups.

[shira]

221. Then do your homework, b/c they did.

Last edited Tue Sep 30, 2014, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Can we at least agree that when people accuse Israel of genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, that's going overboard? What do fringe leftists say WRT Israel that you disagree with?

Amnesty has also claimed Israel deliberately targeted civilians as a matter of policy. This was something the Goldstone Report concluded. It took over a year later before Goldstone had to retract but this is a prime example of Amnesty not being careful with their accusations. Both Amnesty and HRW were onboard with the UN, claiming Israel targeted Palestinians as a matter of policy. Goldstone retracted that claim more than a year later.

[DanTex]

225. Well I haven't seen it, and I tried "doing my homework" by searching and came up dry.

But I'll take your word for it. The Goldstone report? How about we leave that can of worms for next time.

Can we at least agree that when people accuse Israel of genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, that's going overboard? What do fringe leftists say WRT Israel that you disagree with?

I think you have a very loose definition of the "fringe left". Jimmy Carter? I don't think so.

Short answers: genocide no, apartheid yes in the occupied territories, ethnic cleansing yes first the Nakba and then settlements.

What do conservatives like John Bolton say about Israel that you disagree with?

[shira]

122. Speaking of rightwing, let's not forget the Lancet and David Duke....

Find me some pro-Palestinians who actually have a problem with cheerleaders of David Duke masquerading as concerned leftwing humanitarians. If you can't, what does that say about the pro-Palestinian movement?

[DanTex]

136. I can only speak for myself. I'm both pro-Palestine and pro-Israel.

So far, this story has only appeared in right-wing media, so there is still doubt over the authenticity of the claims. Right-wingers digging through the private emails of academics and coming to misleading conclusions is nothing new -- remember "climategate".

However, if the story stands up to scrutiny, then I agree that the names of the professors who were involved in circulating David Duke stuff should be removed from the letter. There were other authors and 20,000 signatures approving the letter, and there is no evidence against any of the rest of them, they shouldn't be punished for what two of the authors did.

[shira]

152. Here's the SPLC reporting on it...

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/09/23/british-medical-journal-publishes-open-letter-by-david-duke-supporting-doctors/

1. FYI, the Southern Poverty Law Center is not rightwing. The "private" emails weren't private at all as they were openly available in google groups.

2. That letter absolves Hamas of any blame. Defend that if you can. Not only that, the letter excuses and therefore supports Hamas terror:

People in Gaza are resisting this aggression because they want a better and normal life and, even while crying in sorrow, pain, and terror, they reject a temporary truce that does not provide a real chance for a better future. A voice under the attacks in Gaza is that of Um Al Ramlawi who speaks for all in Gaza: “They are killing us all anyway—either a slow death by the siege, or a fast one by military attacks. We have nothing left to lose—we must fight for our RIGHTS, or die trying.”2

It's simple. Disarm or severely hamper Hamas' terror capabilities and then call for an end of the siege. Anything less is support for another Gaza war within 2-5 years. Where am I wrong?

3. Two of the five authors of that letter are gutter antisemites indistinguishable from David Duke. They are without any question rightwingers. If they wrote a letter about any other matter, you certainly wouldn't approve of that content if their signatures were simply removed after the fact. So why this defense of such a repulsive and heinously rightwing letter? Who's defending rightwing trash now?

4. Do you agree with the last paragraph in their letter?

We register with dismay that only 5% of our Israeli academic colleagues signed an appeal to their government to stop the military operation against Gaza. We are tempted to conclude that with the exception of this 5%, the rest of the Israeli academics are complicit in the massacre and destruction of Gaza. We also see the complicity of our countries in Europe and North America in this massacre and the impotence once again of the INTERNATIONAL institutions and organisations to stop this massacre.

These people are supposed to be elite representatives of the scientific community and they end their letter with this ignorant UN-scientific blather? Really?

[DanTex]

159. OK, maybe it's accurate. SPLC is still basing its article on the right-wing Telegraph's report.

But, whatever, let's assume that it's true. Like I said, I think those two authors should be removed from the letter. I also think that the other authors should issue a statement saying that they find David Duke's views despicable and don't condone spreading hate propaganda.

I didn't read the letter, I didn't post the letter, and I don't really care about the letter. My guess is, I agree with some things in the letter and not others. This is Lancet's problem, not mine. If we argue about the content of the letter, it will probably boil down to the same fundamental disagreements as other discussions about I/P.

What I was responding to was the accurate post about how ironic it is for you of all people to be complaining about right-wing associations and playing the "bedfellows" card, after you voluntarily climb into bed with John Bolton and that lunatic who smeared murdered teenagers as "pro-terrorist" (yes, I know, "engaged in a pro-terrorist program&quot .

[shira]

165. Excellent...

Like I said, I think those two authors should be removed from the letter. I also think that the other authors should issue a statement saying that they find David Duke's views despicable and don't condone spreading hate propaganda.

I agree.

Realize this will never happen. The pro-Palestinian movement won't stand for it as they're too politically compromised by their fringe Leftwing anti-Israel views. This includes Amnesty Int'l as well. I wouldn't be surprised to find support for that letter as it stands from some their activists.

[shira]

194. Let's see if u agree the Lancet Open Letter supports terror

This is in the letter...

People in Gaza are resisting this aggression because they want a better and normal life and, even while crying in sorrow, pain, and terror, they reject a temporary truce that does not provide a real chance for a better future.

How else can that be read as anything other than support for Hamas terror? Hamas resists Israeli aggression b/c they want a better and normal life...

Note the support for rejecting a truce with Israel. That's support for more terror attacks.

[DanTex]

198. I think it's dishonest, but I'm not sure I'd say that it "supports terror".

What they are trying to do is pretend that there is no terrorism, or at least ignore the terrorism, so as to make the moral calculus simpler. That's why they use the ambiguous term "resistance". What "pro-terror" looks like is when someone says "attacks against civilians are justified because of XYZ reasons." These people are just trying to overlook the terrorism issue.

Arguably, it's an "apology for terrorism" but I don't think it's "pro-terrorism".

Either way, I wouldn't have written that.

[shira]

203. Seriously? Look below to the links about Swee Ang and Mads Gilbert....

At the end of this thread. Both on video...

Dr. Ang with her statement about suicide bombing and Mads Gilbert about "resistance" this summer, along with his support for 911 terror attacks back in 2001.

These were just 2 of the 5 authors of the open letter.

You want to state FTR neither one supports terror? Really?

[DanTex]

207. You asked me about those two sentences, and I answered.

Now you're changing the question. Why would you do that?

If someone supports the 9-11 terror attacks, then that person is obviously pro-terror.

[shira]

214. It's obvious the letter is pro-terror written by pro-terror people....

...at least 2 of whom mirror David Duke's views.

I agree they're apologists for terror. They defend it and support it.

I don't see how calling them "pro-terror" is wrong when they're apologists for it, defending it, supporting it...

[DanTex]

216. You're mashing a whole lot of things together.

One is whether those sentences you quoted are "pro-terror" or whether the letter as a whole is "pro-terror". Another other is whether those two authors are pro-terror, and whether they mirror David Duke's views. Another is whether apologizing for terror is the same as being "pro-terror".

I've explained my view on that passage, and I think I understand yours. I'm not sure there's any reason to continue at this point.

[azurnoir]

100. They were at a Workers Youth League summer camp on Utoya Island

The island is owned by the Workers Youth League, to whom it was given as a gift in 1950

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Youth_League_%28Norway%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ut%C3%B8ya

[whosinpower1]

103. 69

69 people were murdered.

[azurnoir]

108. The group who's camp where the massacre happened is the youth wing of Norway's Labour Party

which was my point in answer to the claim that it may as well have been a terrorist camp, what kind of person refers to Labour Parties youth camps as terrorist?

as to the number of victims I am well aware that there were 89 at the camp and an additional 8 in Oslo

[whosinpower1]

115. I stand corrected

I understand she was inferring that the group may have been training in terrorist activities - which is completely repulsive.

89....victims all.

[Israeli]

112. " we really do need to make a sticky with some of her more memorable posts. "....

Great idea shaayecanaan ....where to start ?

How about if she lived here and could vote here ......her statement that she would vote Meretz .

And everything she has had her say to say about Shulamit Aloni and B’Tselem......

http://www.btselem.org/shulamit_aloni

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.570350

Her hatred of the Israeli Left is only outdone by her hatred of all things Palestinian and/or Arab .

But ...shaayecanaan....and its a big but ....never forget that she is American .

Caroline Glick , Pamela Geller .....and shira.

[shira]

114. I think it's great a past-zionist like yourself votes for a zionist party like meretz

I wish all past-zionists and anti-zionists supported zionist politics.

I must say I have a hard time believing you once supported a Labor PM like Rabin when you would unquestionably call all Laborites today rightwingers. Consider that Rabin's last speech to the Knesset was FAR to the right of what Barak and Olmert offered in 2000 and 2008.

We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:

A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the "Green Line," prior to the Six Day War.

D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

Sounds like Netanyahu today! But please, DO tell us how much a leftwinger like yourself loves what's written above.



I thought you had enough of this forum, but welcome back anyway!

[whosinpower1]

116. Indeed? More from that very speech

This government, with the Labor Party at its center, this party made its positions known through its party platform, which it made known to the public. Even before the elections to the current Knesset, we made clear and we emphasized to the electorate, at every opportunity, that we preferred a Jewish state, even if not on every part of the Land of Israel, to a binational state, which would emerge with the annexation of 2.2 million Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We had to choose between the whole of the land of Israel, which meant a binational state, and whose population, as of today, would comprise four and a half million Jews, and more than three million Palestinians, who are a separate entity -- religiously, politically, and nationally -- and a state with less territory, but which would be a Jewish state. We chose to be a Jewish state.

We chose a Jewish state because we are convinced that a binational state with millions of Palestinian Arabs will not be able to fulfill the Jewish role of the State of Israel, which is the state of the Jews.




Likud party platform - a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.

[Israeli]

117. Its post zionist shira ...

....and most of us vote Meretz ... or Hadash .

Since Rabin's assassination we have changed .....no more " Am Yisrael Chai " ....no more one nation .

Yigal Amir was our Messiah.

" thought you had enough of this forum, but welcome back anyway "

Had enough of your lies and BS shira ...but reading this thread I seriously doubt that anyone is fooled by you .

[shira]

121. So since Rabin was killed, you went way further left - correct?

You quit being a Zionist due to that?

Tell me, would you describe people who still hold to Rabin's views (from his last speech) as rightwingers?

[Israeli]

129. Correct on both counts shira ...

Rabin has been dead for a very long time ....
his murder was not merely the death of a man or the death of a peace process, it was also the death of liberal Zionism .

There is no major political party in Israel today that could be called liberal, in the way Rabin’s Labor Party was in the 1990s – and that includes the Labor Party as it exists today.

Rabin’s vision heralded an Israel that played a constructive role in the region, an Israel that sought genuine peace – an Israel, in effect, without the burden of occupation. By seeking a genuine peace process, Rabin could have severed the umbilical cord of the occupation.

The only true Left wing parties left are Meretz and Hadash shira ... and very few of us that vote for either would descibe ourselves as Zionists today .

[King_David]

124. Rabins views were Zionist

And certainly not post Zionist nonsense ( with their 170 members )please don't insult this Jewish hero.

[Israeli]

130. Rabin's views got him ...

.....shot in the back by a true Zionist King_David .

Sure ...only 170

If we are only 170 then why do we have Caroline Glick and Martin Sherman and Co. spending so much time and effort writing about us ?????

Ref :

http://www.think-israel.org/sherman.haaretzvsjews.html

■“Israel should consider altering its anthem to include non-Jews” (March 2)
■“Israel needs an anthem that represents Arabs and Jews” (March 12)
■“Israel needs national symbols all citizens can identify with” (April 27)
Ostensibly, the objective is to redraft the trappings of public life to allow the Arab minority to identify with, and participate in, state-related activities, ceremonies and celebrations. However, it takes little analytical effort to discover that this is but a flimsy veneer concealing a unambiguous campaign for the conversion of Israel from the “nation-state of the Jews” to “a-state-of-all-its-citizens.”

Howz about this for our new anthem ?

http://tv.social.org.il/en/a-new-anthem

[Jefferson23]

143. Words of the anthem were replaced with words that celebrated human rights..... +1.

[Israeli]

148. Glad you like it Jefferson23....

....its by Yonatan Shapira....you can read more about him here @

http://rabbibrant.com/2010/05/05/my-lunch-with-yonatan-shapira/

King David does not seem to appreciative .....ah well cant please everybody .

[Jefferson23]

149. Most Americans will not ever be exposed to interviews like that through our mainstream media.

Most have no idea the degree to which Israeli policy is about oppression and submission:

*He mentioned that the IDF is increasing their crackdown on protesters, that they hire infiltrators to throw stones at the army to given soldiers the a pretext to open fire. None of it succeeds, of course: quite the opposite. The Palestinian non-violence movement is growing steadily – a “White Intifada” that Yonatan believes has already begun. As a IDF officer himself, he explained the Israeli military mentality – that army commanders truly believe they have the power to “outlaw” these protests through the sheer force of their military might.

Thank you for the link, Israeli.

[Israeli]

154. That is a shame ....

He is really well known over here Jefferson23 ....here is an interview he did with the BBC ..

[Jefferson23]

158. I doubt this will ever be part of any discussion on our msm. n/t

[shira]

163. No, it shouldn't be any part of a rational discussion....

Yonatan Shapira goes bonkers with the Israel = Nazi comparisons, claims there's genocide happening in Gaza, and even goes so far as to spray anti-Israel graffiti on Warsaw Ghetto walls:

http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-sliding-into-muck.html

Good article there.

[Jefferson23]

175. You posted an attack on Shapira from a blog that states, Don't Divide Jerusalem.

Yea, it's a great article, because it makes clear how fucking ridiculous your sources are and
steadfast to be right winged.

FREE GAZA are the words that were sprayed on Warsaw Ghetto walls.

Conscientious objector Yonatan Shapira questioned by Shin Bet
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/conscientious-objector-yonatan-shapira-questioned-by-shin-bet-1.302896

Israeli and Polish activists spray 'Free Gaza' on Warsaw Ghetto walls
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/israeli-and-polish-activists-spray-free-gaza-on-warsaw-ghetto-walls-1.300007

[Israeli]

177. leave it be Jefferson ...

worlds apart .....just be grateful she cant vote over here .

[Jefferson23]

179. Yep. n/t

[Israeli]

176. Thanks that we have here then Jefferson23.....

You can educate me on your American culture and politics and I the other way around .....

I would suggest you get a copy of " Little Town of Bethlehem " .....

Ref : http://littletownofbethlehem.org/about/

Little Town of Bethlehem, a documentary film, follows the story of three men of three different faiths and their lives in Israel and Palestine. The story explores each man’s choice of nonviolent action amidst a culture of overwhelming violence.

The film examines the struggle to promote equality through nonviolent engagement in the midst of incredible violence that has dehumanized all sides. Sami’s story begins as a young boy living in the Israeli-occupied West Bank; Yonatan’s starts on an Israeli military base; and Ahmad’s begins in a Palestinian refugee camp.

Their three stories are interwoven through the major events of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, starting with the 1972 massacre at the Munich Olympics and following through the first Intifada, suicide bombings in Israel, the Oslo Accords, the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin, and the second Intifada. Sami, Yonatan, and Ahmad each describe the events from their unique perspective, interjecting personal reflections and explaining how these events led them to become involved in the nonviolence movement.

Yonatan embraced his father’s legacy as a pilot in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and fulfilled his own dream of becoming an IDF helicopter pilot. However, his journey led him to the astonishing decision to join with 26 other IDF pilots who publicly refused to participate in missions that would lead to civilian casualties. Co-founding the organization Combatants for Peace, made up of former Israeli and Palestinian combatants, Yonatan struggles to reconcile his love for his country with his growing opposition to the Israeli occupation.

All three men have had their lives threatened by members of their own communities as a result of their work. Sami, Yonatan, and Ahmad continue to embrace their common humanity and equality for all, daring to have the hope that peace in the Holy Land can be achieved through nonviolent struggle.

BTW ....I'm ignoring shira's attempt to smear Yonatan below ...It is pointless to keep pointing out that we live in different worlds ....not only on different continents .

[Jefferson23]

178. Yes, and your input is very much appreciated here.

Younger Americans are not as accepting of Israeli propaganda and the narrow view they're
fed through the msm on the subject is penetrated through other means, internet, college
campus activists...social media etc.

The documentary looks to be informative, thank you.

Btw,I would not worry about her attempts to smear, either.

[Israeli]

180. By some maybe ....

" Younger Americans " .....younger Israelis to Jefferson23....the younger generation in both of our countries will change both for the better ....keep the faith .

Ah, If I Were 25

27/09/14

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1411731067/

[Jefferson23]

181. Yea, well, there are a few who don't...pay no mind to them.

We have to work to meet that end *even in its restricted meaning for peace, shalom expresses a profound human longing. From antiquity, people craved for peace and dreaded war. "

But yes, we need to get there, together..peace out, Israeli.

[King_David]

145. From your link :

"ANTI-ZIONISM STRATEGY: The success of the post-Zionist strategy hinges on breaking the sense of kinship between the Jewish people and the State of Israel."


You think that will ever happen?

Rabin a Jewish Hero would disown any group claiming this garbage. All 170 of you people...

[intaglio]

27. Well what about force resettlement of indiginous groups

Do you think that is justified - even though it is in contravention of established international humanitarian law?

And before you fly off at a tangent the Israeli Government is forcing this migration on the Bedouin in Gaza

[King_David]

30. Israel

Is spelt with a capital "I"

FYI

[grossproffit]

32. #1

Happy New Year to you, King David.

[King_David]

48. Shanah Tova

[whosinpower1]

33. Grammar police with "spelt"?

LOL!!!!

Spelt is a species of wheat.

FYI.

[grossproffit]

34. The use of "spelt" as a verb is correct. Spelt, the species of wheat is a noun. eom

[whosinpower1]

38. Not from my schooling.

We never would have been able to get away with that. It would be considered lazy......like not bothering to take the effort to capitalize a name......

[King_David]

47. Exactly right

Spelling police not grammar.

[whosinpower1]

49. Touche'

Lol

[shira]

36. Not sure I said "guilty". I agreed with the expulsion...

....but it is an example of ethnic cleansing. It meets all the criteria as per the definition.

[azurnoir]

46. Notice this is an attempt to demonize the Lancet for it's scathing criticism of IDF actions in Gaza

the Lancet refuses to retract the letter which has garnered over 20,000 signatures via an on line campaign which only ran less than a week to get the 20,000 which was the goal and is now closed

excerpt from the letter which is in full at the link

An open letter for the people in Gaza

We are doctors and scientists, who spend our lives developing means to care and protect health and lives. We are also informed people; we teach the ethics of our professions, together with the knowledge and practice of it. We all have worked in and known the situation of Gaza for years.
On the basis of our ethics and practice, we are denouncing what we witness in the aggression of Gaza by Israel.
We ask our colleagues, old and young professionals, to denounce this Israeli aggression. We challenge the perversity of a propaganda that justifies the creation of an emergency to masquerade a massacre, a so-called “defensive aggression”. In reality it is a ruthless assault of unlimited duration, extent, and intensity. We wish to report the facts as we see them and their implications on the lives of the people.
We are appalled by the military onslaught on civilians in Gaza under the guise of punishing terrorists. This is the third large scale military assault on Gaza since 2008. Each time the death toll is borne mainly by innocent people in Gaza, especially women and children under the unacceptable pretext of Israel eradicating political parties and resistance to the occupation and siege they impose.
This action also terrifies those who are not directly hit, and wounds the soul, mind, and resilience of the young generation. Our condemnation and disgust are further compounded by the denial and prohibition for Gaza to receive external help and supplies to alleviate the dire circumstances.
The blockade on Gaza has tightened further since last year and this has worsened the toll on Gaza's population. In Gaza, people suffer from hunger, thirst, pollution, shortage of medicines, electricity, and any means to get an income, not only by being bombed and shelled. Power crisis, gasoline shortage, water and food scarcity, sewage outflow and ever decreasing resources are disasters caused directly and indirectly by the siege.1
People in Gaza are resisting this aggression because they want a better and normal life and, even while crying in sorrow, pain, and terror, they reject a temporary truce that does not provide a real chance for a better future. A voice under the attacks in Gaza is that of Um Al Ramlawi who speaks for all in Gaza: “They are killing us all anyway—either a slow death by the siege, or a fast one by military attacks. We have nothing left to lose—we must fight for our rights, or die trying.”

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961044-8/fulltext

info about the signatures and other stuff including responses

http://www.thelancet.com/gaza-letter-2014

[shira]

51. It's legit criticism. What's next for Lancet, publishing David Duke open letters? n/t

[azurnoir]

55. just a tad hyperbolic wouldn't you say? the letter concerned the welfare and health of the people of

Gaza, but Iraq war supporters in the US were unhappy when the Lancet began publishing its estimates of Iraqi casualties too

[shira]

57. No. Ang & Manduca drink the D.Duke Kool-Aid...

What's scandalous is that the Lancet unapologetically publishes gutter anti-semites opining on the actions of Jews.

Not to mention that their letter absolves Hamas, an internationally recognized terror group sworn to murdering Jews, of all blame.

No one here should be defending that dog shit.

[azurnoir]

59. there have been over 20,000 signatories to the letter

yet for some reason all of the attention is on these 2

true or false the Lancet has refused demands to retract the letter and this current campaign in which we are asked to believe a renowned geneticist penned an email that asks us to hurry to read a video that was already 18 months old at the time and which BTW reads somewhat like the fever dream of a SWU wannabe IMO

[shira]

62. Yeah, they should all be ashamed. And you're still defending....

....that which neither Ang nor Manduca denied. Neither one gave any reason to doubt the content of the email.

[azurnoir]

63. perhaps neither Ang nor Maduca consider this kerfuffle worthy of notice or denial

seeing especially as how the head of the Lancet has dismissed it too and BTW you did not answer my question

[shira]

65. Then let them say that, rather than u making up BS to defend them. n/t

[azurnoir]

67. well why doesn't 'someone' maybe you send them a strongly worded email?

let us know okay?

[azurnoir]

92. so tell me exactly what BS have I made up? any facts have been accounted for such as

the fact that the Duke video was 18 months old at the time this anxious alleged email saying must see before the vid is taken down was sent, the fact that at least Meduca had been targeted prior to this alleged email, the fact that there have been demands from almost the moment it was published that the Lancets Open Letter to the People of Gaza which was scathing in it's assessment of Israel's actions in Gaza be withdrawn, the fact that in addition to the 24 original signatories the letter had garnered another 20,000+ signatures and finally the fact that the head of the Lancet himself has dismissed this smear campaign and steadfastly refuses to rescind the letter

anything else is my opinion based on those facts, ya know that's what IMO means and I for one do not confuse what is my opinion with facts unlike some here

[azurnoir]

60. here again an excerpt from-"An open letter for the people in Gaza"

We are doctors and scientists, who spend our lives developing means to care and protect health and lives. We are also informed people; we teach the ethics of our professions, together with the knowledge and practice of it. We all have worked in and known the situation of Gaza for years.
On the basis of our ethics and practice, we are denouncing what we witness in the aggression of Gaza by Israel.
We ask our colleagues, old and young professionals, to denounce this Israeli aggression. We challenge the perversity of a propaganda that justifies the creation of an emergency to masquerade a massacre, a so-called “defensive aggression”. In reality it is a ruthless assault of unlimited duration, extent, and intensity. We wish to report the facts as we see them and their implications on the lives of the people.
We are appalled by the military onslaught on civilians in Gaza under the guise of punishing terrorists. This is the third large scale military assault on Gaza since 2008. Each time the death toll is borne mainly by innocent people in Gaza, especially women and children under the unacceptable pretext of Israel eradicating political parties and resistance to the occupation and siege they impose.
This action also terrifies those who are not directly hit, and wounds the soul, mind, and resilience of the young generation. Our condemnation and disgust are further compounded by the denial and prohibition for Gaza to receive external help and supplies to alleviate the dire circumstances.
The blockade on Gaza has tightened further since last year and this has worsened the toll on Gaza's population. In Gaza, people suffer from hunger, thirst, pollution, shortage of medicines, electricity, and any means to get an income, not only by being bombed and shelled. Power crisis, gasoline shortage, water and food scarcity, sewage outflow and ever decreasing resources are disasters caused directly and indirectly by the siege.1
People in Gaza are resisting this aggression because they want a better and normal life and, even while crying in sorrow, pain, and terror, they reject a temporary truce that does not provide a real chance for a better future. A voice under the attacks in Gaza is that of Um Al Ramlawi who speaks for all in Gaza: “They are killing us all anyway—either a slow death by the siege, or a fast one by military attacks. We have nothing left to lose—we must fight for our rights, or die trying.”

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961044-8/fulltext

[Harry_Scrote]

166. ?

Interesting read. Can Jews be racist towards non-Jews?

[shira]

192. Dr. Mads Gilbert is one of 5 authors of the open letter....

A radical who advocates 911 terror on the USA is an advocate for Hamas....

Gilbert provoked a front-page scandal in Norway (see image, right: “Norwegian doctors ADVOCATE TERROR attack”) when he expressed support for the 9/11 attacks in an interview with Norway’s Dagbladet newspaper, on 30 September 2001.

First the newspaper quotes his support for a colleague’s pro-terrorism position:

I advocate the moral right of the people you call terrorists to attack the United States, as a legitimate response to 25 years of wars of aggression, mines, starvation and embargo, says surgeon Hans Husum, UNIVERSITY Hospital of Tromsø. He is supported by physician Mads Gilbert.

Then Gilbert makes his own views crystal clear:

Dagbladet: Do you support a terrorist attack on the United States?
Gilbert: “Terror is a poor weapon, but the answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned.”

Dagbladet: You understand that this will create reactions?
Gilbert: “Yes, that’s to be expected. The white world does not understand that it is possible to see such an act in a different perspective.”

http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2014/07/14/unrwa-tells-reporters-to-interview-norwegian-supporter-of-911-attacks/

In 2009, he falsely claimed Israel was using illegal DIME weapons.

The Lancet has gone to shit.

[shira]

193. Mads Gilbert openly supporting Hamas terror against Israel this summer...

Video: Palestinian resistance in Gaza is “fighting for all of us,” says Dr. Mads Gilbert
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/video-palestinian-resistance-gaza-fighting-all-us-says-dr-mads-gilbert

Nice friend of Hamas.

[shira]

195. Swee Ang (1 of 5 authors) justified suicide bombing....

http://standforpeace.org.uk/medical-aid-for-palestinans/#_edn13

MAP both legitimises and supports acts of terrorism; founder Dr Swee Ang has admitted that some of the nurses in her organisation became suicide bombers in the 1980s, adding that she “wish(ed) they don’t have to do this … (but they did have to,) to defend their people. What else can (sic) they do?” In 2002, the organisation accepted the proceeds of a BOOK, ‘After the Terror’, which argues that “those Palestinians who have resorted to violence have been right to try to free their people, and those who have killed themselves in the cause of their people have indeed sanctified themselves.”

Classy.

A doctor sworn by oath to save lives supports terror attacks, but claims to be a humanitarian. She co-founded "Medical Aid for Palestine".



Starting at 9:10...

&feature=youtu.be

[azurnoir]

222. Interesting detail Ang Swee was in Israeli custody around the time the alleged email was sent

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/08/dr-swee-speaks-on-her-deportation-from-israel-because-of-her-intended-humanitarian-work/

http://www.veooz.com/topic/al_mayadeen.html

[Jefferson23]

223. The Stand for Peace link she added above is directly associated with Gatestone Institute top members

From wiki:From Beirut to Jerusalem: A Woman Surgeon With the Palestinians [1] is a book by Swee Chai Ang, an orthopaedic surgeon who worked with civilians during the Lebanese Civil War. The book details her eye-witness account of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Dr. Ang, a graduate of the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Britain, testified before the Kahan Commission. The commission was responsible for investigating the nature of the Israeli involvement in the massacre of perhaps 800 to 1000 Palestinians. Dr. Ang established a British charity following her first hand account of the massacres known as the Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) which she discusses in her work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Beirut_to_Jerusalem:_A_Woman_Surgeon_with_the_Palestinians

I can see why Israeli officials love her.

[azurnoir]

224. another article on that site entitled:Adnan Oktar and the Islamist sex cult

kind of leaves one with a Pam Geller would luv this stuff impression, Gatestone is no surprise either

[Jefferson23]

226. Yea, and in post#195, where the claim Ang justified suicide bombers is a lie.

She states in the interview the opposite. Understanding what motivated the violent
reaction, and states, not justifiable..a distinction she made clear.