It’s time to stop demonizing Israel

[shira]

It’s time to stop demonizing Israel
The flood of hypocrisy and bad faith that seems to have just been waiting across the media worldwide for the Mavi Marmara is by no means acceptable.

By Bernard-Henri Lévy

Of course, my position hasn’t changed. As I said the day it happened, during a fierce debate in Tel Aviv with one of Benjamin Netanyahu’s ministers, I continue to find the manner in which the assault against the Mavi Marmara and its flotilla was effected off the Gaza coast to be “stupid.”

If I’d had any remaining doubt, the inspection of the seventh boat − carried out without a trace of violence Saturday morning − would have convinced me there were other ways Israel could have operated to have kept the tactical and PR trap set by the provocateurs of Free Gaza from snapping shut, and with blood spilled.

That said and repeated, the flood of hypocrisy, bad faith and, ultimately, disinformation that seems to have just been waiting for this pretext to flow into the breach and sweep across the media worldwide − as is the case every time the Jewish state slips up and commits an error − is by no means acceptable.

The catchphrase being trotted out ad nauseum refers to the blockade imposed “by Israel.” The most elementary honesty, however, requires one to make clear that this blockade has been undertaken by both Israel and Egypt, conjointly, along the borders of the two countries that share frontiers with Gaza, and with the thinly disguised blessing of all the moderate Arab regimes. Saying the blockade has been imposed by Israel alone can only be described as disinformation. The moderate Arab regimes, of course, are only too happy to have someone else contain the influence of this armed extension, this advanced base and, perhaps one day, this aircraft-carrier of Iran in the region.

more...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/it-s-time-to-stop-demonizing-israel-1.294833

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chulanowa]

3. The plethora of smilies is a nice touch

Kinda gives it a Comedy / Tragedy look.

As in, "look, a comedian going through the existential pangs of being a Muslim-hating sack of shit"

And the author of the article is pretty questionable too

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fozzledick]

5. Demonizers gonna demonize

:evilfrown:

[shira]

21. It's apparently okay by faux liberals to mischaracterize, misrepresent, distort, slander, lie

....exaggerate, defame and dehumanize Israelis.

Against any other people, it's racism or bigotry.

Not so against Israelis.

[subsuelo]

33. It's not 'bigotry' to oppose executing peace activists. n/t

[shira]

36. sure seems like it when knife wielding, stun grenade tossing jerks beating people...

...with metal pipes are described as 'peace activists' in order to deliberately misrepresent the situation as Israel "executing peace activists".

[subsuelo]

44. The deliberate misrepresentation is by the villainous IDF

Not surprising - this isn't the first time they murder peace activists and make excuses for it, rather than apologizing for their behavior.

But what do you expect from cowards? They always have an excuse every time they execute those who oppose their barbaric treatment of the indigenous population.

[shira]

49. Disgusting. If they're peace activists, I'd hate to see warmongers.

[ColesCountyDem]

54. Notice how it's always 'peace activists' and not 'blockade runners'?

That's the mindset you're arguing with.

[shira]

66. They must be peace activists. Otherwise Israel cannot be portrayed as evil incarnate.

[BanTheGOP]

4. Without the American GOP, Israel disappears

Without the republican party, Israel would have no serious allies in the world, and therefore would have to cede to the socialist Arab progressive movement, and bring TRUE peace into the region... or go down in destruction as the arab world would feel they have no choice. Yes, a dangerous situation, but there is NO AMBIGUITY where progressive sentiment lies in this regard.

[LakeSamish706]

12. Actually it's as much the Democrats as Repugs. that are the problem in making

excuses for Israels behavior.

[RZM]

13. Pure bullshit

The far left and the far right in America don't have a whole lot in common, but one thing they do agree on is that the rest of the world revolves around the United States. Do you really think that without the GOP Israelis would simply give up and say 'well -- that's that . . . we had a good run but we can't possibly continue without the American Republican Party?' There are plenty of people in the US who support Israel that are not part of the GOP or even on the right at all, let alone Israel supporters outside of the United States. And what about the 'socialist Arab progressive movement' . . . who are you speaking of here? The Hashemites in Jordan? The autocracies in Syria and Egypt? Hamas? The Saudi royal family? I don't think any of those groups espouse progressive values in a consistent manner.

[LAGC]

15. What about all the foreign military aid we give Israel?

How long would Israel last if it were yanked away?

The way I see it, its blood on our hands, each time the IDF murders an innocent civilian.

[RZM]

16. No doubt the aid is welcome there

But they would survive without it (actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it is yanked sometime in the next few decades). Israel's a fairly prosperous country -- they can buy arms on the world market and also produce them themselves (which they already do). They would have to do some 'belt-tightening' but they would in the end be just fine -- or at least fine enough to more or less continue the status quo. I'm no expert on the IDF budget, but that's the impression I get.

[liberaltrucker]

6. When Israelis dump NimrodYahoo we will think about it

Until then, not so much.

[burnsei sensei]

7. Excuse me,

but the current Israeli government and AIPAC have done much more to demonize Israel than any media figure.
Their own actions indict them.
The truth cannot be hidden.

[EgyptianGirl]

8. Please Shira

Would you kill someone Shira and then feel nothing? Why are you defending people that you are sure will not do like them?

You are sad people are biased, So Why are you biased against Arabs and especially Palestinians? We are people like you who just want to live in our lands. It is not our fault they told them to believe lands where other people are living in it is their promised lands.

[corpseratemedia]

10. well they were kicked out remember?

[EgyptianGirl]

18. who?

[Yeahyeah]

9. You're right.Israel should stop being demonic.

[OrderedChaos]

11. I thought

it was against board policies to post a whole article, from somewhere else, on this board? I like how we got the requisite 4 paragraphs first, and then the follow up with the rest of the article. Nice way to work around the rules. Ironic isn't it.

[Wizard777]

14. They do it to themselves. Please! Make them stop demonizing themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHBtpqbOKXk">Superbeast!

[frylock]

17. more fail

[Scuba]

19. Why? Are they going to stop oppressing their neighbors and arab citizens?

[shira]

20. Because it's evil to deliberately exaggerate, distort, and misrepresent reality?

[Scuba]

22. You mean like the fake audio transmissions?

[shira]

42. How does condensing 6 minutes of mostly dead airtime into 30 seconds make it fake?

[ColesCountyDem]

23. Like it or not, folks, lobbing rockets into a country is a casus belli, and a blockade ....

... is a legitimate response to that casus belli. Everyone wants to ignore that issue and take up the debate as though it didn't exist a priori.

[azurnoir]

24. wow you've learned 2 new words and in latin yet

I'm impressed, but still and non the less collective punishment of a civilian population is not allowed under the Geneva Convention rules, oops wait I just explained why Israel has never declared war on Gaza oops

[ColesCountyDem]

25. It's 'nonetheless', all one word...

Furthermore, it is NOT collective punishment under the Geneva Convention. Finally, there need not be a 'declared war' for a state to have the legal right to blockade someone else. Does Cuba ring a bell?

:eyes:

P.S.-- We didn't learn two new words today, either-- we learned them thirty years-ago, at Drake University Law School.

[azurnoir]

26. I think that has already been discussed

and the US's blockade of Cuba only concerned US goods and did not include those from other countries if it did how else was the then USSR able to import Cuban sugar cane? Not to mention get missels into Cuba?

In response to the Cuban alignment with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy extended measures by Executive Order, first widening the scope of the trade restrictions on February 7 (announced on February 3 and again on March 23, 1962). According to a former aide, Kennedy asked him to purchase 1,000 Cuban cigars for Kennedy's future use immediately before the extended embargo was to come into effect. Salinger succeeded, returning in the morning with 1,200 Petit H. Upmann cigars, Kennedy's favorite cigar size and brand.<7> Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy imposed travel restrictions on February 8, 1963, and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations were issued on July 8, 1963, under the Trading with the Enemy Act in response to Cubans hosting Soviet nuclear weapons. Under these restrictions, Cuban assets in the U.S. were frozen and the existing restrictions were consolidated.

In 1962, Cuba was expelled from the Organization of American States (OAS) "by a vote of 14 in favor, one (Cuba) against with six abstentions. Mexico and Ecuador, two abstaining members argued that the expulsion was not authorized in the OAS Charter."<8> Multilateral sanctions were imposed by the OAS on July 26, 1964, but these were rescinded on July 29, 1975. Cuban relations with the Organization of American States have improved as of 3 June 2009 (membership suspension lifted).

The restrictions on U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba lapsed on March 19, 1977; the regulation was renewable every six months, but President Jimmy Carter did not renew it and the regulation on spending U.S. dollars in Cuba was lifted shortly afterwards. President Ronald Reagan reinstated the trade embargo on April 19, 1982. This has been modified subsequently with the present regulation, effective June 30, 2004,<9> being the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 515.<10> The current regulation does not limit travel of US Citizens to Cuba per se, but it makes it illegal for US Citizens to have transactions (spend money or receive gifts) in Cuba under most circumstances without a US government Office of Foreign Assets Control issued license.<11>
Helms-Burton Act

The 1963 U.S. embargo was reinforced in October 1992 by the Cuban Democracy Act (the "Torricelli Law") and in 1996 by the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (known as the Helms-Burton Act) which penalizes foreign companies that do business in Cuba by preventing them from doing business in the US. The justification provided for these restrictions was that these companies were trafficking in stolen U.S. properties, and should, thus, be excluded from the United States.

The European Union resented the Helms Burton Act because it felt that the US was dictating how other nations ought to conduct their trade and challenged it on that basis. The EU eventually dropped its challenge in favor of negotiating a solution.<12>

After Cuba's shoot-down of an unarmed Brothers to the Rescue plane in 1996, which killed three Americans and another man, a bi-partisan coalition in the United States Congress approved the Helms-Burton Act. The Title III of this law also states that any non-U.S. company that "knowingly trafficks in property in Cuba confiscated without compensation from a U.S. person" can be subjected to litigation and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may also be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba. This restriction also applies to maritime shipping, as ships docking at Cuban ports are not allowed to dock at U.S. ports for six months. It's important to note that this title includes waiver authority, so that the President might suspend its application. This waiver must be renewed every six months and it has traditionally been. It was renewed for the last time July 17, 2006,<13> therefore the suspension of this provision will remain effective for, at least, another six months following that date.

In response to pressure from some American farmers and agribusiness, the embargo was relaxed by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which was passed by the Congress in October 2000 and signed by President Bill Clinton. The relaxation allowed the sale of agricultural goods and medicine to Cuba for humanitarian reasons. Although Cuba initially declined to engage in such trade having even refused US food aid in the past,<14> seeing it as a half-measure serving U.S. interests, the Cuban government began to allow the purchase of food from the U.S. as a result of Hurricane Michelle in November 2001. These purchases have continued and grown since then. In 2007, the US was the largest food supplier of Cuba<15> and its fifth largest trading partner.

In some touristic spots across the island, American brands such as Coca-Cola can be purchased. Ford tankers refuel planes in airports and some computers use Microsoft software<16>. However, the origin of the financing behind such goods is not always clear in today's market where billions of dollars move around the earth every minute. The goods often come from third parties based in countries outside the US, even if the product being dealt originally has US shareholders or investors<17>. This can be seen for example with Nestle products (which have a 10% US ownership) and can be bought in "Convertible Pesos” (CUCs)-hard currency, stores that are pegged to the US dollar, Euro and other currencies. But since 25 National Pesos equal just one Convertible Peso, and CUCs are not used to pay the already small wages, access to such goods by ordinary Cubans is highly restricted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

[ColesCountyDem]

27. The blockade was in 1962, and it included everybody.

An embargo is not a blockade. Two entirely different subjects and two sets of entirely different laws apply.

[azurnoir]

28. but still it was covered in the article I posted

not to mention that the actual blockade was of military materials only

eta the blockade lasted all of one week not years as the Israeli one of Gaza has, but here is more on that episode

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a confrontation between the Soviet Union, Cuba and the United States in October 1962, during the Cold War. In September 1962, the Cuban and Soviet governments began to surreptitiously build bases in Cuba for a number of medium- and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles (MRBMs and IRBMs) with the ability to strike most of the continental United States. This action was subsequent to the 1958 deployment of Thor IRBMs in the UK and Jupiter IRBMs to Italy and Turkey in 1961; more than 100 U.S.-built missiles having the capability to strike Moscow with nuclear warheads. On October 14, 1962, a United States U-2 photoreconnaissance plane captured photographic proof of Soviet missile bases under construction in Cuba.

The ensuing crisis ranks with the Berlin Blockade as one of the major confrontations of the Cold War and is generally regarded as the moment in which the Cold War came closest to turning into a nuclear conflict.<1> The United States considered attacking Cuba via air and sea and settled on a military "quarantine" of Cuba. The U.S. announced that it would not permit offensive weapons to be delivered to Cuba and demanded that the Soviets dismantle the missile bases already under construction or completed in Cuba and remove all offensive weapons. The Kennedy administration held a slim hope that the Kremlin would agree to their demands, and expected a military confrontation. On the Soviet end, Nikita Khrushchev wrote Kennedy that his quarantine of "navigation in international waters and air space to constitute an act of aggression propelling humankind into the abyss of a world nuclear-missile war." Castro encouraged Khrushchev to launch a preemptive first-strike nuclear attack on the U.S.

The Soviets publicly balked at the U.S. demands, but in secret back-channel communications initiated a proposal to resolve the crisis. The confrontation ended on October 28, 1962 when President John F. Kennedy and United Nations Secretary-General U Thant reached an agreement with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to dismantle the offensive weapons and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for an agreement by the United States to never invade Cuba. The Soviets removed the missile systems and their support equipment, loading them onto eight Soviet ships from November 5–9. A month later, on December 5 and 6, the Soviet IL-28 bombers were loaded onto three Soviet ships and shipped back to Russia. The quarantine was formally ended previously at 6:45 p.m. EDT on November 20, 1962. As a secret part of the agreement, all US-built Thor and Jupiter IRBMs deployed in Europe were deactivated by September 1963.

The Cuban Missile Crisis spurred the creation of the Hotline Agreement and the Moscow-Washington hot line, a direct communications link between Moscow and Washington, D.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

[ColesCountyDem]

31. It's an interesting article, but it's dispositive of nothing to do with THIS blockade. n/t

[azurnoir]

37. LOL when its Israel its always different

especially when your original points fall flat

[ColesCountyDem]

47. My original point remains quite healthy, thank you.

Nothing in your any of posts has disproved one single point I made.

[Tripmann]

29. is that the same law school where you learnt legal definitions that don't exist?

Oh, and if the blockade includes punishing the general population (a la 'putting the gazans on a diet' for the last 3 years) then it is very much in breach of the Geneva convention. Article 33 to be exact.

[ColesCountyDem]

30. No, it's the one where I learned to expose specious arguments by cross-examining people.

You can't stand the fact that I tricked you, can you? Furthermore, just because you happen to believe that it violates that Article doesn't make it so.

[Tripmann]

34. LOL! Yeah, how DID that cross examination work out for you??

[ColesCountyDem]

35. It worked out fine, since it exposed your 'talking-out-of-your-ass' argument

Why can't you just accept that I baited you, got you to commit to a legally-insufficient proposition, and then pulled the rug out from under you? C'mon, it's not THAT embarrassing, is it?

[Tripmann]

38. Unfortunately for you, people read what others post around here.

And you were exposed for your dishonesty. And while I was able to provide evidence for my claim, all you could do was make yourself out to be a liar.

[ColesCountyDem]

40. Really?

We must be remembering two different events. It's perfectly acceptable to pretend something on cross-examination, in order to trick someone.

Sorry, you failed.

[Tripmann]

52. My proof. You said I was 'ignorant' of the definition, then claimed there was none.

Next time you're dishonest, try doing it where theres no evidence around.

Read from here boys and girls....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x318421#318734

What's it like to repeatedly post the same legally-ignorant stuff time after time?

Your use of terms like 'collective punishment' shows complete ignorance of and disregard for their actual legal meaning.

and then

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x318421#319843

The definition is.............. that there is no definition

You then try to flip it and make it look like you're some genius lawyer instead of just incompetent. Which is just pathetic.

Anyways, People can read for themselves and make up their own mind.

[ColesCountyDem]

55. It's a perfectly acceptable courtroom technique.

That was amply born out when I jerked the legal rug out from under you.

Don't like it? Tough. Next time try a different topic, and avoid legal matters.

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

57. As a 'lawyer',dishonesty might be your mealticket

But this is not a courtroom, its a forum. And if you call somebody ignorant, then can't back it up, you mark yourself as somebody who should not be believed.

Oh, and when there is a 'different topic' and you make call somebody ignorant but can't back it up, you'll make a fool of yourself there as well. And if that person happens to be me, you will be exposed once again as somebody whos all mouth, no trousers.



Hows that legal career working out for ya??

[ColesCountyDem]

58. Sorry you didn't like it, but that doesn't make it illegitimate.

There were lots of things I didn't care for in YOUR debating technique, either, but I managed to restrain myself from saying all manner of personally nasty things about you.

If one plans to speak authoritatively on a legal matter with someone who's actually trained as a lawyer and be totally self-righteous about it, then that person shouldn't be surprised when they have the legal rug jerked out from under them.

P.S.-- It worked out just fine, thank you; I'm licensed but retired now, however.

[Tripmann]

59. This is an open forum. You call somebody ignorant and can't back it up, just admit it and don't make

an even bigger fool of yourself when you're caught red handed by going "eh...eh....eh...you fell into my cunning trap"

:rofl:

[ColesCountyDem]

60. It was a trap, and you fell for it.

Good thing it was on an internet forum and not in a real courtroom; in a real courtroom, even the judge would have snickered when I jerked the rug out from under you, most likely.

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

64. How did I fall for it. I wasn't the one making bullshit claims that I couldn't back up.

And anyways, who are you trying to convince? Everyone can read the posts for themselves.

[azurnoir]

39. actually it was I who baited you

because I mentioned it, but for review

Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons
Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories

Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment' While popular debate remains on what constitutes a legal definition of torture (see discussion on the Torture page), the ban on corporal punishment simplifies the matter; even the most mundane physical abuse is thereby forbidden by Article 32, as a precaution against alternate definitions of torture.

The prohibition on scientific experiments was added, in part, in response to experiments by German and Japanese doctors during World War II, of whom Josef Mengele was the most infamous.
Collective punishments

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33. is the one more commonly quoted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

until Egypt recent opening of Rafah which was after the flotilla incident Gaza was still under occupation

[ColesCountyDem]

41. Once again, nothing you posted is dispositive of the issue of 'collective punishment' as regards....

... the situation in Gaza. Nowhere in Article 33 does it mention blockades. The examples of 'punishments' cited in your article ALL refer to acts of violence.

[azurnoir]

43. Perhaps you need to learm better reading skills

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

under the rules of occupation the civilian population would qualify as protected persons, regardless of Israel's legal maneuvers

[ColesCountyDem]

45. My reading skills are just fine.

Nothing in Article 33 makes a blockade an act of 'collective punishment', since it is neither intimidation nor terrorism. Words as written MEAN something. 'Woulda, coulda or, shoulda' DOESN'T mean anything.

[azurnoir]

46. Lol n/t

[ColesCountyDem]

48. I'm pleased you're amused.

When you can win a legal argument, it's just as well you should laugh about it, I suppose.

[shira]

50. Only WRT Israel is a legal blockade defacto collective punishment.

[azurnoir]

51. lol same goes for you as I said you've been baited n/t

[ColesCountyDem]

56. You can SAY I have, but you can't prove it.

Big difference.

[EFerrari]

32. The Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories disagrees with you.

Thanks, I'll take his word for it, not yours.

[JuniperLea]

63. What came first? The oppression of Palestinians or the lobbing of bombs...

No one is helping Palestine except someone as evil as Israel.

[aranthus]

65. The lobbing of bombs came first. n/t

[aranthus]

53. There is a part of me,

the cynical, throw everything into the fire and let it burn part, of which I'm not proud, that would like the Americans to completely pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, for the Israelis to pull out of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and end the Gaza blockade, and then wait and see what happens. Just so that everyone will be absolutely clear on what the demonizers really want.

[shira]

61. Agreed

[JuniperLea]

62. If it walks like a duck... eom