Goldstone Report Findings
Judge Richard Goldstone
Not really unexpected, but good to have on record:
The UN Fact-Finding Mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone on Tuesday released its long-awaited report on the Gaza conflict, in which it concluded there is evidence indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.
The report also concludes there is also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel.
Presumably Judge Goldstone issued these findings motivated by his racist attitudes toward Jewish people, and threw in the stuff about Palestinians in an effort to cloud over his true agenda with false even-handedness.
67 Responses to “Goldstone Report Findings”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 15th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Oh, now you are just intentionally baiting SLC.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
So how many Senate votes does Judge Goldstone have on the Healthcare Reform plan?
I count three in Bibi’s pocket. heh heh
September 15th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Has it been determined yet if Goldstone is a self-hating Jew or merely a garden variety anti-semite?
September 15th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Al is the omega for domestic affairs, SLC the omega for Israeli issues.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
This isn’t just about anti-Semitism (or philo-Semitism, for that matter). The Palestinians face grinding and brutal treatment everyday from the Israeli state and from Israeli citizens. It deserves to be treated as a crisis.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Yet another report that will lead to nowhere.
Talk about being powerless as an organization, that UN
September 15th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I am very disappointed by their attack on Palestinian resistance movements. Palestinians have the right to fight for self-determination by any means at their disposal. As long as they’re fighting against colonial domination, nothing they do can be classified as ‘war crimes’ or ‘crimes against humanity’; all of it is perfectly legitimate resistance.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“Al is the omega for domestic affairs, SLC the omega for Israeli issues.”
Too simplistic, because what does that make abb1? It’s more of a yin-yang thing.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Everyone from Chuck Schumer to Anthony Weiner to Dennis Praeger to Caroline Glick will scorn and spit upon Goldstone as an inconsequential, self-hating faggoty Jew with mother issues who would gladly sit on Himmler’s lap peppering him with butterfly kisses. This report will have the shelf life of 3-day old chicken fat and tomorrow the IDF will high-five each other as they shoot a 3 year old Palestinian girl as she bends over to pick a flower.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
beowulf — the former.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Goldstone. Goldstone.
Hmm….probably changed it from Goldstein.
Another self-hating Jew!
September 15th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
However if he had kept the German spelling he would be even more self hateing, since honorable Jews have to leave when a German starts a speach in German.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
The rules don’t have a ‘if my side does it, it’s OK’ exception.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
The report seems pretty mundane.
It does not claim that Israel has no right to self-defense from rocket attacks on its cities.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
sorry daveNYC, the Israel question isn’t being decided according to “the rules” because it isn’t a game, contest, or even a regular conflict between countries.
One side is an expansionist colonial project heavily subsidized by the First World and (still) the possessor of (dwindling) national legitimacy, resulting in the most militarized state in the world.
And the other is a group of several million people mostly comprised of refugees with no organized state or defense forces.
One side has suffered casualties that are nearly a factor of ten greater.
What you consider to be “the rules” of this conflict must be an interesting concept, indeed. Why don’t you elaborate? Tell us about “your side”, too.
September 15th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Granting that the Palestinians are entitled to resist, and granting that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and barricade of Gaza are illegitimate colonialism, I still think the statement that nothing the Palestinians could do could be considered a “crime against humanity” is morally absurd. There are crimes that will always be beyond the pale. Of course, it’s a moot point, because the Palestinians (with a couple exceptions, incidents of child murder and whatnot) haven’t done anything approaching that. In general, to commit crimes against humanity, you need the big guns that colonized people rarely have access to.
September 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Since “the Jewish people” are officially “a nation,” Goldstone, by not defending it against any and all criticism, regardless of his heritage or affiliations–could only be considered “an enemy” thereof.
This is just more concrete proof of the existence of one of the world’s most nefarious, durable, and omnipresent conspiracies: the Gentile campaign to “get” “the Jews”.
For another example, just look at what they’re doing in Toronto–trying to make a harmless public-relations film about Tel-Aviv a POLITICAL issue. I mean, how low can you go? What is even political about 60 years of ethnic-cleansing and warfare in repeated violation of international law, anyway?
September 15th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
You guys are missing the larger point. Israel is our proxy –practically everything she had in the way of military force we either gave her or gave her the money to buy.
So Goldstone’s indictment of Israel is just as much an indictment of past US Governments –whores for the billionaires of the Israel Lobby, regardless of party affiliation.
When Ariel Sharon dropped a bomb from an F16 onto an apartment building in the middle of the night in Gaza — one of the most densely populated places on earth — and killed six children, everybody in the world knew that fighter jet and bomb were made in USA and supplied by the USA. Except for US citizens who depend upon the lying US news media for info.
September 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I agree that Israel is an ally and that she has legitimate security concerns.
But we should have stomped on the right wing Likud — and our rightwing Israel Lobby — a long time ago. Whenever they tried to sabotage a push toward peace and especially after they killed 7000 of our countrymen with lies. And showed no remorse whatsoever.
September 15th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
In fact, it is a rule, a rule once proclaimed by the international community: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649
It is very sad indeed that they don’t have enough sense (or, rather, strength) to maintain consistency. It makes it a travesty of justice.
September 15th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Why don’t you fuck off and die. Indiscriminate bombing is a fucking war crime/crime against humanity regardless of whether it is done with 500lb bombs from F-16s, or with craptastic Qassam and Grad rockets. The only things stopping the Palestinians from dialing up the body count are budget issues, and the fact that if they do, then the Israelis will napalm a fucking food warehouse and a kitten orphanage.
September 15th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Re Don Williams
When Ariel Sharon dropped a bomb from an F16 onto an apartment building in the middle of the night in Gaza — one of the most densely populated places on earth — and killed six children, everybody in the world knew that fighter jet and bomb were made in USA and supplied by the USA. Except for US citizens who depend upon the lying US news media for info
It’s too bad that Ariel Sharon didn’t take a leaf out of the Hafaz Assad playbook and apply Hama Rules to the Gaza Strip. Then Mr. Williams would really have something to whine about.
Re Mr. Yglesias
Another take on the report from the other side, since Mr. Yglesias, like his buddies in Jstreet is in the pocket of the Arabs.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804578791&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The first paragraph in the article follows
After a quick first review, the 575-page report of the Goldstone mission seems as bad or worse than had been expected – the critics who warned of a “kangaroo court” created in order to find Israel guilty will claim that they were correct.
Goldstone’s press conference in New York and the report’s recommendations constitute another step in the Durban strategy, in which the language of human rights and international law are used as weapons in the political war to isolate and demonize Israel.
I say fuck goatfucker Goldstone and fuck the UN.
Re abb1
Given the antipathy of Swiss fucktards like Mr. abb1, I am going to suggest that Prime Minister Netanyahu cease and desist from taking his skiing vacations in Switzerland and that all Nestles’ products be banned from the State of Israel.
September 15th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Indiscriminate bombing is a fucking war crime/crime against humanity regardless
Not if you’re an indigenous individual fighting against colonization and alien domination.
…incidentally, surely all of you fellas listening to your seder lectures every year must have learned by now that even indiscriminate slaughtering of every first-born is quite acceptable and to be celebrated once a year for at least 5 thousand years, right?
September 15th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
*reads thread*
Yep. That went about as expected.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
You mean the bit where we pour out wine for each plague? Where we are told that even though they resulted in the freedom of the slaves, they resulted in loss of life and should be mourned? As part of the same religeon that says that when God un-parted the sea, thereby drowning the Egyptians, he stopped the Israelites from celebrating since he had just destroyed many of his creatures?
The mere existance of SLC and abb1 makes feel better about the dangers of global warming.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Where we are told that even though they resulted in the freedom of the slaves, they resulted in loss of life and should be mourned?
Mourned? I don’t think so. You’re supposed to merely reduce your pleasure. Regardless, my point stands.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“I’m not obsessed with the Jews.” –abb1, yesterday
“…incidentally, surely all of you fellas listening to your seder lectures every year must have learned by now that even indiscriminate slaughtering of every first-born is quite acceptable and to be celebrated once a year for at least 5 thousand years, right?” –abb1, today
Yep, nothing like a non-sequitur blood libel to convince us that you don’t have any particular interest in the Jews!
(By the way, regarding “you fellas,” a lot of people who think you’re disgusting are not Jewish.)
September 15th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Ah, hit the nerve again. I guess I must be doing something right.
So, describing seder is a blood libel, huh? Lol. OT, but it reminds me of this article I read a few days ago. What do you think, tomemos, my friend?
September 15th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
“I guess I must be doing something right.”
If you’re trying to convince us that you’re a straight-up racist, simple and plain, then you’re doing magnificently. Yesterday you were trying to convince us of the opposite, though.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Tomemos, brother, I don’t think you and a whole bunch of other folks here can be convinced of anything, frankly. Lost cause, I’m afraid.
But you fellas certainly do provide some amusement, and for that I’m thankful.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“…incidentally, surely all of you fellas listening to your seder lectures every year must have learned by now that even indiscriminate slaughtering of every first-born is quite acceptable and to be celebrated once a year for at least 5 thousand years, right?”
This crosses the line from “I’m just an anti-colonialist who thinks Zionism is racism” into another, and more historically grounded, territory altogether.
And in some cases, of course (not all), it isn’t a line, just cover. It’s hard to look into the heart of another person and know for sure what they’re thinking and feeling. For that matter it’s often hard to look into one’s own heart and understand these things.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Yeah abb1, good luck trying to convince Zionist Jews that you aren’t racist. Their whole raison d’etre remember is to foil the organized, all-encompassing, racist Gentile conspiracy to disband “the Jews”.
In the process they’ve mounted what is the single-largest racist project in the world. But really, that’s can’t be their fault–they’re the real victims here. Go visit your local Holocaust Museum repeatedly until you feel guilty enough to understand that.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
“Yeah abb1, good luck trying to convince Zionist Jews that you aren’t racist.”
Let’s do it this way: fuck you, asshole, I’m not Jewish. (I’m not a Zionist, either, by any definition other than abb1’s.) You think it’s not anti-Semitic to assume that you’re talking to “Zionist Jews”? What about people who assume that fans of Obama (or, for that matter, rap music!) are black nationalists, or “backwards-cap-wearing thugs,” as a pal of yours put it yesterday?
There is actually an extremely clear line between criticism of Israel, much or most of which is perfectly legitimate and necessary, and anti-Semitism. The fact that abb1, Murph, and others like being on the wrong side of that line tells you everything you need to know about them.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Ahhh… This is so nice and thoughtful of you, Larry.
Anyway, what line does it cross? It’s perfectly in line with the UNGA resolution 2649 that I quoted above.
The only lesson here is that you (assuming you are one of those pretentious pseudo-religious fellas) are a giant hypocrite, that’s all.
September 15th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
@32, there was an interesting discussion in another thread where one “joe from Lowell” insists that denying that ethnic groups and races exist is also racist. I thought that was funny.
I agree with you: these days one can only be Zionist or a racist; that’s the new definition of racism. I don’t mind, let them. What’s in the name?
September 15th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“there was an interesting discussion in another thread where one “joe from Lowell” insists that denying that ethnic groups and races exist is also racist. I thought that was funny.”
Did you think it was funny, and not racist, when Golda Meir said that the Palestinians didn’t exist, or when SLC calls them the Fakestinians?
“I agree with you: these days one can only be Zionist or a racist; that’s the new definition of racism.”
Anti-Semites love this line because it seems to cover their asses, but it’s false. You might notice that Matt Yglesias never gets called a racist or anti-Semite for his criticism of Israel, even by those who disagree with him. There actually are statements which are anti-Semitic on their own, namely, those that stereotype Jews as an ethnic group.
Anyway, you’re one to accuse people of absolutism, or of misusing the term “racism,” since you regularly call people Zionists AND racists just for not believing in the abolition of Israel as a nation.
September 15th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
You know tomemos, aside from you and daveNYC’s exquisite vocabulary, you’re right, there’s nothing that positively identifies you as Zionists. Besides your bending over backwards to make “moot points” vaguely suggesting Israeli moral equivalency, that is.
But you’re right on one point. I hadn’t realized that the best way to keep black people (!!!) safe from prejudice is to build a racist colonial empire in stolen Palestine.
September 15th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
“you’re right, there’s nothing that positively identifies you as Zionists.”
I was objecting to your assumption that, because I think your language is anti-Semitic, I must be Jewish, an assumption that is itself anti-Semitic. I notice you’re not responding to that part at all.
“your bending over backwards to make “moot points” vaguely suggesting Israeli moral equivalency”
I was quibbling with the claim that crimes against humanity cannot be contradicted by a resisting people. It’s an abstract point, and I’ll withdraw it if you think it derails the discussion.
“But you’re right on one point. I hadn’t realized that the best way to keep black people (!!!) safe from prejudice is to build a racist colonial empire in stolen Palestine.”
I’m against colonialism in the Middle East, and specifically against the Gaza blockade, the occupation of the West Bank, and the appropriation of East Jerusalem. I’m also against the state’s abuse (legal and extralegal) of Arabic citizens who should have equal rights.
I brought up anti-black racism to help you understand why your statements about “Zionist Jews” fit a pattern of racist speech. I hope you’ll understand that a sure way to drive potential supporters away is to demonize the Jews, and that you’ll eschew such language for that reason.
September 15th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
“contradicted” should be “committed” in my comment above.
September 15th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Did you think it was funny, and not racist, when Golda Meir said that the Palestinians didn’t exist
Palestinians are not an ethnic group or a race. Palestinians are the indigenous population of Palestine, a community of individuals that existed in Palestine before Zionists came and colonized the place.
So, what Golda Meir said certainly is racist, but it’s not because for her the ethnic groups didn’t exist; on the contrary, it’s because she saw two distinct ethnic groups: the Jews (who need, deserve, and must have various things) and all the rest, who don’t count. That’s quintessential racism.
September 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I agree with abb1 re: colonialism:
Europeans out of the U.S., including Latinos of Spanish origin.
The official American language should be Cherokee.
St
September 15th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
abb1, that’s a very coherent argument. Credit where credit is due.
September 15th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I’ve never seen abb1 write anything that’s racist. I have seen, however, lots and lots of hypersensitive pro-Israel types jump down his throat when he dares to point out that an ideology that insists on elevating one ethnic group over another is racist.
September 15th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I brought up anti-black racism to help you understand why your statements about “Zionist Jews” fit a pattern of racist speech.
Dude, you do realize that the adjective “Zionist” actually means something, right? It’s not just some intensifier, or a way for anti-semites to refer to “super-Jewy Jews” or something. “Zionism” refers to an actual ideology, which has actual attributes, one of which is the insistence on a nation-state controlled by ethnic Jews in part or all of historic Palestine, regardless of the presence of those who are not ethnically Jewish. It is not crazy or anti-semitic to characterize this view as racist, especially in an age when the non-Jewish population between the Jordan and the Mediterranean now outnumbers the Jewish population, but is largely deprived of basic human rights by the Jewish government and military that oversees them.
September 15th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Now this is comedy!
September 15th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“Dude, you do realize that the adjective “Zionist” actually means something, right? It’s not just some intensifier, or a way for anti-semites to refer to “super-Jewy Jews” or something.”
Zionism is a political ideology. “Jewish” is not. And since many of the most hawkish Zionists in America are not Jewish—Dick Armey, Mike Huckabee, et al—Murph’s reference to “trying to convince Zionist Jews” was a superfluous attack on Jews (made all the more superfluous since at least one of his interlocutors was not Jewish). By the same token, the word “criminal” or “thug” means something too, but does it strike you that the people who refer to “black criminals” or “black thugs” are being racist?
September 15th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
I think that there are different categories of severity in war crimes. The allied bombings of Tokyo or Dresden were, I’d say, very likely war crimes — but I’d say that they can be distinguished from the experiments of Kempeitai Unit 731 or killing innocent Roma in Treblinka. Yet that doesn’t mean that the circumstances of the conflict — say, the fact that Japan was the aggressor against the U.S., China, Russia, etc — mean that any action would have belonged in some “more excusable” class of war crimes. If the U.S., for instance, had started regularly killing unresisting, unarmed Japanese in territories already occupied by the US, then yeah…
I’d say that the Gazan rocket attacks are probably war crimes, but they belong to a relatively excusable sort — not because Israel is occupying and denying the rights of the Palestinians, not the other way around, but because they simply don’t belong to the most egregious type of action. However, if a Palestinian were to, say, spray ebola into the midst of Tel Aviv, I think that would belong to a far more serious form of war crime.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Many Israelis have grandparents that were born in Israel/Palestine. When does a land claim ‘reset’?
Commonwealth out of Canada!
September 15th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Salt Lake City:
Are you seriously quoting Gerald Steinberg? He makes Avigdor Lieberman look moderate.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
This just in
War leads to war crimes
September 15th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Julian, the problem with adding purely subjective modifiers to absolute rules is that it makes the rules meaningless, arbited only by whoever happens to be stronger at that particular time. It’s that sort of argument that lets people try to argue that torture is fine when X does it, but not when Y does. More to the point, the distinction is arbitrary – it allows you to substitute your own value judgment about who is worse to justify their actions – a circular argument, since those actions themselves are what is providing occasion to raise the issue in the first place.
This isn’t to say that some war crimes are not worse than others… but it does mean that there’s no get-out-of-jail free card just because you happen to be on the oppressed side. If a colonized population decided mass rapes and executions were a sound plan, they don’t get off scot-free just because they happened to be the underdog.
One footnote: I would also note that the appeal to previous UN resolutions to try to support this is pretty silly, because the UN says all sorts of both inoffensive and absurd things, and the fact that something made its way into resolution form has little bearing on whether or not it is either logical or moral. (Castro is a “World Hero of Solidarity”? What does that even mean?)
September 16th, 2009 at 12:02 am
“This isn’t to say that some war crimes are not worse than others… but it does mean that there’s no get-out-of-jail free card just because you happen to be on the oppressed side. If a colonized population decided mass rapes and executions were a sound plan, they don’t get off scot-free just because they happened to be the underdog.”
This is pretty much exactly what I was writing. I specifically excluded considerations of who was right or wrong in the overall conflict from assessing of the degree of human rights violations in the conduct of the conflict (i.e., the fact that Israel is the occupying power and Israelis aren’t living under laws made by a Palestinian government, the fact that Japan attacked the U.S. and not the other way around, etc). I never said justice in the conduct of the war is on the side of the underdog/oppressed/aggression-victim — I intended on rejecting it, although perhaps I was not as clear as I hoped. Rather, the heinousness of the crimes are judged on their own merits. Rocket attacks in the general direction of civilian residential areas are a war crime, whether the target is London, Dresden, or Sderot, but I’d say not in the same category as assaults on unarmed civilian populations already under one’s effective control like, say, the rape of Nanjing.
One might argue that if the Palestinians had obtained control of, say, Sderot, and occupied it militarily, terrible things would have ensued. However, that’s hypothetical; maybe they only didn’t because they couldn’t, but the fact remains that they didn’t.
September 16th, 2009 at 2:39 am
If a colonized population decided mass rapes and executions were a sound plan, they don’t get off scot-free just because they happened to be the underdog.
Yes, I do think so, absolutely. Because they are the ones being victimized and because they are powerless, no blame should be laid on them, all the blame is on the villain.
That would be just, and that’s the only way to end this kind of villainy once and for all; and conversely: equal application of the rules clearly benefits the powerful and only incentivize their villainy.
To me, this is like if some committee investigated the Warsaw ghetto upraising and blamed the victims for disrupting the normal life in Warsaw, and the Nazis only for killing those who didn’t participate in the fighting. Now, that’s silly: obviously the Nazis were responsible for the whole thing, for the totality of it. And it’s almost exactly the same situation in Gaza, and everywhere in Palestine.
Come on, people, some common sense, please.
September 16th, 2009 at 7:36 am
That would be just, and that’s the only way to end this kind of villainy once and for all; and conversely: equal application of the rules clearly benefits the powerful and only incentivize their villainy.
This is missing the point. Rules don’t magically enforce themselves, they need buy-in from broad sections of society. Including allies of the accused or, at the very least, disinterested third parties.
To me, this is like if some committee investigated the Warsaw ghetto upraising and blamed the victims for disrupting the normal life in Warsaw, and the Nazis only for killing those who didn’t participate in the fighting
The Nazis lost and were judged by their enemies. Unless you think the UN only needs support from Iran and the like for its war crimes report on Israel, the Nazi analogy is irrelevant. The UN, and Matt, essentially wants both Israeli allies like the US and disinterested countries to hold Israel to account for war crimes. Presumably because these countries believe in the rules regarding war crimes.
Your fantasy rules simply won’t have anything like a broad constituency to enforce them, certainly not from any country which has endured terrorist acts by disadvantaged minorities.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Rules don’t magically enforce themselves
But who said anything about any enforcement here? The current structure of the UN is such that, with the 5 permanent SC states having the veto power, almost nothing can be enforced, certainly not any Zionist crimes. I’m talking about their principles, which is, pretty much, all they have there.
And, when talking about “broad sections of society” and “broad constituency” do you really mean “broad” or do you mean something like “rich and powerful”? Because the Resolution 2649 that I quoted above was passed by the UN GA, and there is nothing in the world more broad than that.
“Israeli allies like the US” – ha-ha, that’s the US government and who else? And “disinterested countries” – sorry, but presumably no one is really “disinterested”; a vast, vast majority of us are interested in justice, peace and tranquility.
So, it’s not clear to me what the essence of your objection is: are you suggesting that the principles of justice need to adjusted to appease the powerful? Sorry, but that just doesn’t make any sense at all.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
So, it’s not clear to me what the essence of your objection is: are you suggesting that the principles of justice need to adjusted to appease the powerful? Sorry, but that just doesn’t make any sense at all.
I’m not aware of any “principles of justice” which allow “he started it” as a catch-all justification for any and all acts of retaliation. For example, in recent news, the cops are not automatically giving a pass to the student who hacked a burglar to death with a Samurai sword.
As for “adjusting” the principles, that makes it sound as if your interpretation is the current accepted one. However, you’re the one who has a problem with the even-handedness of the UN war crimes report. So you want the UN to adjust its understanding of the principles of justice to fit your “he started it” view. I’m just saying that, IMO, the UN can’t do that without destroying the constituency against war crimes. You’re free to disagree.
September 16th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I’m not aware of any “principles of justice” which allow “he started it” as a catch-all justification for any and all acts of retaliation.
Where did you get “he started it”? Once again, just for you:
Does this really sound like “he started it” to you, or you’re just trolling at this point?
September 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
To tomemos–I was being presumptuous, not racist, and confusing the two works to the detriment of the very cause you purported to champion, once you’d finished cursing me out.
Note that I said “Jewish Zionists,” not just “Jews”, unless I was using the nationalist concept of “the Jews”, the “Jewish people”, because these are explicitly political concepts and fall squarely in the bounds of reasonable political discourse. Or do they?
I don’t know, maybe blog commentaries should be sanitized of any irreverence toward hallowed myths of Zionism… but screaming “anti-Semite” when because I essentially challenged you to reveal the whole of your political identity? Isn’t that what insolvent news corporations and Harvard University Law Professor Alan Dershowitz are for?
September 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Abb1–
In response to:
If a colonized population decided mass rapes and executions were a sound plan, they don’t get off scot-free just because they happened to be the underdog.
You wrote
“Yes, I do think so, absolutely. Because they are the ones being victimized and because they are powerless, no blame should be laid on them, all the blame is on the villain.
That would be just, and that’s the only way to end this kind of villainy once and for all; and conversely: equal application of the rules clearly benefits the powerful and only incentivize their villainy.”
Did the Serbians have the right to rape camps, etc. b/c of their historical persecution by their Bosnian and Croatian neighbors?
September 16th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Quick question: let’s divide the people under the control of the Israeli government into four categories:
1) Israeli Jews — voting citizens (once they’re 18+ years old) of Israel as of its pre-1967 borders.
2) Israeli Arabs — voting citizens (once they’re 18+ years old) of Israel as of its pre-1967 borders.
3) Settlers — voting citizens (once they’re 18+ years old) of Israel in the occupied territories, such as the West Bank.
4) Occupied Palestinians — disenfranchized residents of the occupied territories, such as the West Bank.
Against whom are mass rapes and executions supposed to be justified? 3? 1, 2, and 3? 1 and 3?
September 16th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
“I was being presumptuous, not racist”
Do you think those are contradictory? Plenty of racism comes from unjustified racial assumptions.
“Note that I said “Jewish Zionists,” not just “Jews”, unless I was using the nationalist concept of “the Jews”, the “Jewish people”, because these are explicitly political concepts and fall squarely in the bounds of reasonable political discourse. Or do they?”
No, they don’t. A Zionist’s religion or cultural background is irrelevant here, because the beliefs and policies advocated by Jewish Zionists don’t differ substantially from those advocated by non-Jewish Zionists. Being Jewish or not Jewish is not part of my political identity. (Of course, someone could make it part of their political identity, like anything else; that’s their decision.)
I’m not accusing you of being a monster, just of having made an unjustified assumption that has the appearance of prejudice.
September 16th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Sorry, tomemos, that’s like saying that you can talk about “Islamism” but whether an Islamist is Muslim or not is out of bounds. Or you can discuss black or white nationalism, but race is irrelevant. It’s just utterly ridiculous on your part and pretty much par for the Zionist course.
The actual religion of Judaism is barely even tangential to a discussion of “Jewish” nationalism. This is tribalism and ethnic nationalism, considered absurdly antiquated and parochial notions in any other context besides … yep, Jewish Zionism.
Why don’t you come and join us here in the 21st century?
September 16th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
To abb1 and followers:
Bla bla bla….this is a big mistake to think that use of intense expressions and high language can distinguish you fellas from common anti-semits?This is sooo boring to read this useless forum, arrogant statements from people who are familiar with subgect from articles in newspapers,rephrasing somebody else wordls, restating old cliches…Potato, Potato
For everybody mentioning “Occupied Palestinians — disenfranchized residents of the occupied territories, such as the West Bank”-little update:they were independent for more than decade, having democratic elections(which is a big deal for arab country), parliament, PM,President and army.Funny story, their standard of living is much higher than, let say, in Yemen, or Egypt.It would be even higher but they blew it out in 2000(effectively killing pease negotiation), starting meaningles and absolutely useless war with Israel.Never enough, I would say.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
To anyone who says Israel is the most amazingly racist country every: Look at your own country folks. The US deliberately massacred the Indians and took their land. Where are the Indians now? Mistreated on reservations. Get off your moral high horse.
To anyone who thinks the oppressed should have the freedom to kill and rape: I invite you to look at the Rwandan genocide. THAT is what happened between the Tutsis and the Hutus. Is that something you approve of?
Good lord. The mind boggles.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:02 am
The US deliberately massacred the Indians and took their land.
That was a couple of hundred years ago. The whole point of creating the UN was to make sure that things like that don’t happen again.
THAT is what happened between the Tutsis and the Hutus.
No, that is not. No one there was under colonial and alien domination.
Did the Serbians have the right to rape camps, etc. b/c of their historical persecution by their Bosnian and Croatian neighbors?
What are you talking about, Gustavo, what historical persecution? In former Yugoslavia everyone was a full-fledged citizen, no one lived under military occupation for 40 years, no ethnically designated towns and roads, no ethnic cleansing, no openly racist immigration laws, no blockades, nothing even remotely like the situation in Palestine for the last 60 years. You’re trivializing to such a degree that is completely crazy.
Against whom are mass rapes and executions supposed to be justified?
The Palestinian people, the population of Palestine as it existed in 1948 has the right to self-determination. As long as it’s being denied to them, they have the right to fight for it and get it back. How they fight is none of my business; I simply can’t imagine myself being in that situation and what I would’ve done if I were one of them. I would have to go to the WB or Gaza or a refugee camp in Lebanon, and live there for several years to understand, and I’m not willing to do it.
Suppose a woman is being raped in a bar. You can break the people in the bar into categories: those who rape, those who cheer, those who sell beer, those who drink their beer, mind their own business and don’t want to get involved. Let’s say the woman gets a hold of a machine-gun or a hand grenade. Would you lecture this woman on how she should or shouldn’t use the weapon? Maybe you would, but I suspect most people wouldn’t.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Shoher, too, maintains that critique of Hamas only serves to turn the tables on Israel http://samsonblinded.org/blog/goldstone-report-the-rebuttal.htm Also, his rebuttal lists many methodological errors in the Goldstone’s report
September 20th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
“Why don’t you fuck off and die.” This is a symptomatic statement. There is no other way to read it. It says die if you don’t agree with my particular kind of advocacy for Israel. It’s one of the reasons why those trying to defend Palestinian rights give up–there’s no educating or persuading people who make statements like “fuck off and die.” People who make statements like that should be ignored rather than “engaged.”