Israel needs Goldstone
Dreading the truth, besieged by Gaza, in a thousand ways, Israel has brought the war home.
By Bradley Burston Tags: Bradley Burston Goldstone report Israel news Gaza[Part two of Fear of peace will be the death of Israel ]
Click here for more articles by Bradley Burston
This is about fear of the dark. Of the monstrous. In this case, the terror of finally uncovering what we ourselves are really made of.
This is about the lengths we will go, and the depths, in order to protect what we so desperately need to believe about ourselves. This is about how many others we will need to blame, vilify, assault, scapegoat and smear, before we actually take one wholly honest long look in the mirror.
This is about the war we made in Gaza, and what it did to Israel. This is about how Israel's conduct of the war has done more damage to the Jewish state than all the thousands and thousands of Palestinian rockets and mortar shells put together. It has been a year and more since a truce was called in Gaza, and - thanks in no small part to Israel's freely admitted policy of hamstringing and stonewalling UN investigators - the world is still at war with Israel.
The result is only now becoming felt. In a thousand ways, in new ways every single day, we have brought the war home.
Israel's battle plan, which effectively called for bludgeoning Hamas and the whole of Gaza into a state of shock, had the further effect, intentional or not, of inducing shock in Israel itself.
We have been sensing the symptoms for a year now. In shock, the first sign to appear is often confusion. A curious sense of weakness can be felt. A restlessness that is little understood. A coldness. Mental clouding. Apathy. Inactivity. There may be blurred vision.
We think: It's not the war. The war is over. The war was over there. The place we can't see. The place we're not allowed to see. The place, that is, that we don't want to look.
The place that makes us much prefer dreading the truth, to the truth itself.
In some cases, shock expresses itself in combativeness. A lashing out even at those who are trying to help.
In our state of shock, we were unable to see that Richard Goldstone was trying to save us. And that the Goldstone Report is exactly what Israel needs. We fought him every step of the way, convincing ourselves - just as in Gaza - that the unfolding catastrophe was the best of the available scenarios.
Had Israel cooperated with the panel, it might have begun to learn how to prevent another war like this one, and how to fight future wars entirely differently. Only now, with the shock beginning to subside, have Israeli military and legal officials begun publicly to concede that battling the Goldstone panel was a colossal blunder.
We fought Goldstone with everything we had. As if our very identity depended on it. More than Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, Ahmadinejad - Justice Richard Goldstone became the enemy. In a bizarre twist of something very akin to self-hatred, far-rightists began routinely, intentionally, sneeringly mispronouncing his name as Goldstein.
Even people whose business it is to know better, people who consider themselves temperate, moderate, lost their minds in calling Goldstone the worst names in the Jewish book.
What is most instructive in this context, is the fact that of all the epithets which Alan Dershowitz hurled at Goldstone in an interview to Israel's Army Radio, the one viewed as the worst of them all - so grave that he later retracted it - was the word moser, used to condemn one who betrays his people by, yes, informing. Divulging privileged information to the outside world.
There is a reason why we so recoiled in horror when Goldstone touched a nerve. It was the nerve that we had done everything in our power to avoid.
Critics of the Goldstone Report have noted that its methodology is deeply flawed, that it fails to adequately acknowledge, assess, and evaluate Israel's side of the conflict. Of late, rightists have gone further, blaming the New Israel Fund, its president Naomi Chazan, and its constituent non-profit organizations for acting as sources of information to the Goldstone mission.
But the attacks have spared the one non-profit organization that, far more than any other, was responsible for the flow of information to the Goldstone panel, and for the tenor of the final report: the government of Israel.
It was Israel which deprived the committee of access to Sderot and Israeli victims of Palestinian rocket attacks. It was Israel which kept the committee from hearing testimony, including rebuttals, from government and military officials. It was Israel which - even before the committee began its work - blackballed any cooperation with the panel, in the process guaranteeing an unbalanced result.
It was the same Israeli government which provided, in the bluster of public statements by the deputy prime minister, the foreign minister, and senior IDF commanders, the most damning evidence of a strategy which would bring devastation to the whole of the Gaza Strip, civilians and armed groups alike.
It is this Israeli government - lending credence to those who believed that it had much to hide - which resisted until the last possible moment the Goldstone Report's most crucial and also its fairest finding: the recommendation that both Israel and Hamas establish independent investigations into its allegations of human rights violations
And it is this Israeli government, in continuing its siege of Gaza, in denying Gazans access to concrete and other materials needed to rebuild homes destroyed by Israeli fire during Cast Lead, that lends further credence to the Goldstone Report's suspicions that Israel's policy has been and continues to be one of collective punishment of a civilian population.
Despite the nightmarish numbers of civilians killed in Gaza, the right has argued again and again that the problem with the war was that it was not pursued aggressively enough. Now, at home, they are getting their way. Finally, the war is being pressed to the full - with peace activists and human rights workers as the primary targets.
The Dahiya Doctrine of overkill and unimaginable, unremitting force, is being applied against the elements of Israeli society most strongly defending democracy and elemental rights. Finally, the war at home is being run the way the right wants. No holds barred. A fresh new onslaught on democracy every single day.
The Goldstone Report is, indeed, deeply flawed. But it is exactly what Israel needs. A deeply flawed report for a deeply flawed country. A country which will not, and cannot, begin to heal itself, repair itself, right itself, unless it faces with honesty and courage the issues and allegations raised by the report.
As long as Israel ducks the report, and keeps buried the whole truth about Cast Lead, it will not recover from this state of shock. Israel will be more vulnerable than ever to destruction from within. And Gaza, ruled by a Hamas which wants to see Israel exterminated - and which has only grown richer, better armed, and more popular as a result of the Israeli embargo - will continue to hold the whole of Israel in a crippling, withering, ultimately destructive state of siege.
Follow Bradley Burston on Twitter
Previous Blogs: Fear of peace will be the death of Israel Bashing Israel for saving Haitians A prayer for the people of Haiti Israel's looming war in Gaza: Can Obama stop it before it starts? Israel's 10 worst errors of the decade I refuse to be your enemy Trust the settlers to lose the West Bank
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Like i need a GALLSTONE
"Either way the idea that Hamas fired exactly 361 qassams a month for 12 months is not a little suspicious to you." Did you forget to take your anti-psychotics today? No one ever made such a claim. Your reading comprehension sucks as bad as your attempts to make credible points.
"Peace involves some risks, but it also demands that people be honest with themselves and others"(Syracuse) "What you personally believe Hamas "would" do, doesn`t mesh with the reality of what Hamas DOES do. Again, Israel withdrew unilaterally from gaza, and was met with a major increase of rocket attacks. That very basic point eludes you at every single turn of this argument"(SDHD #533) I cannot say it better myself. The problem with you guys, Syracuse, is that, on the one hand, you expect all concessions and statesman-like behaviour to come from Israel ALL the time. And, on the other hand, all you do is make excuses for what Hamas ACTUALLY says and does, ALL the time. I say: If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, then it IS a duck .... That's why I recognize Hamas for what they are: T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S. However, when they will change and start looking, sounding and acting like responsible leaders of their unfortunate people, that's when I will change my tune about them, NOT a minute before.
"Last post on this one ..."(Syracuse) I hope so, because you ignored my reference about the ROR in my post #494. Remember my post #494? This is what it says in response to your ardent denials about the so called right of return demand ... "Now let`s see the PAs position regarding the so called Right of Return: "In a series of polished statements, the PA minister related to the return of refugees as a practical solution - and even as a precondition - to a final status agreement. Speaking on Friday at a Beirut gathering that included refugee delegates, Sha`ath said the right of return to "Palestinian cities in the Jewish state" is an integral part of the Arab peace initiative, which is referred to by the road map as one of the fundamental elements of a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians"(Haaretz Feb 2010) Any questions, Syracuse? Or Are you saying that Haaretz is a rabid right wing publication?"(Tim R post #494) So, even your PA/PLO example is irrelevant at best or disingenuous at worst. Or come to think of it, maybe it is relevant after all, but NOT the way you make out ... Judging by how the Oslo deal with the PA/PLO did NOT work out, judging that the P.A/PLO too is still aiming at Israel's destruction, using a different formula than Hamas, Israel should NOT repeat their mistakes with Hamas too. And that's where your quote of Einstein IS appropriate, Syracuse: "...the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"(Your quote of Einstein)
The Goldstone Report was not fully in favour of the Jews..... But anti semetic? maybe subtly so..... because the fact remains that Goldstone a Jew was most certainlty questioned by those who 'chose him' for the job as they must have found some 'weaknesses' in his character which they fully utilised. So it was no accident then that he was chosen. Is the Goldstone report antisemitic Goldstone flirts with anti-Semitism Richard Goldstone has no problem associating with anti-Semites. His choice of assistants says everything about him. He picked a diplomat from a nation who denies the right of Israel to exist and his other deputy called Israelis war criminals and uses the most vile language about Israel and the concept of a Jewish state. Goldstone has been featured in anti-Semitic web sites and has never asked for his name to be removed. His conduct speaks volumes about him.
It would be better than the vacuum you got. "361 x 12 = 4332" Donut, that is no more to do with reality than your claim Pinochets case was decided by an International Court in the UK. See #343. Those "361 x 12 = 4332" figures are from your favourite site that it took you a whole day to dig up. The 'IDF spokesperson said to dummies website'? Either way the idea that Hamas fired exactly 361 qassams a month for 12 months is not a little suspicious to you. Of course not because your head is full of shit. ADSD your ma should have spat your pa's seed out like she usually did, before conceiving you. Each and every post you send is more full of crap than the last. So your dumbarse IDF figures {hold on while I get Hamas to confirm it}are more agreeable than the Jewish Policy Website which says 4,248 qassams up to 2008 from the start of the Intifada in 2000? Well halfbreed? Now try and cast your pea brain back to your first comment to JS on missiles. Something about 8 years of rocket fire. Not one year like you NOW want to focus on but didnt before. Same slippery old switch and bait hoping no one notices the rubbish you said in the post before. Now let me give your dumbarseness a clue as to how big a clot you are. The source for the information given on the Jewish Policy Website is: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That is what is said on their website right by the figures for qassams for the eight year period. So IDF spokesperson for dummies website might not always give it to you straight or square their little fiction with the Foreign Ministry. So why dont you stop playing with your cock and get a life.Got that now, sieve head? Total rockets fired from 2001-2008: 4,248. in 8 years.
As for the aftermath of the Gaza redeployment. All parties can share the blame. Make no mistake that includes Israel too despite your misty eyed idea of what the withdrawal was intended to achieve (see Dov Weisglass) and how it was enacted. A very pro Israeli James Wolfensohm, placed the blame on ALL parties not least Israel (but espec the US) for the failure of the Gaza exercise when he resigned his position. Here is another take from a J.Post article written post Goldstone Report. "Here is our idea of the "laws of war": When Israeli bulldozers rolled across the border into Gazan villages and flattened house after house so Hamas wouldn't have them for cover after the IDF pulled out, that was self-defense. But if a Palestinian boy who'd lived in one of those houses threw a stone at one of the bulldozers, that was terrorism." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254861893834&pagename=JPArticle/ShowFull So, it is best not to simply present the hasbara illusion retold ad infinitum on here, it is not a case of we gave them so much and they treat us so bad. Did you ever really in your heart believe that? Peace involves some risks, but it also demands that people be honest with themselves and others. Thus far Israel has had a foot in two camps simultaneously. The peace and the war camp. That was how they approached the Gaza episode of 2005.
"So let Hamas agree to amend their charter at some unspecified time in the future, hopefully less than the 3 years it took the PLO." The PLO charter hasn't been amended. Can you cite when this amendment took place and when it was ratified? "Were Israel to act in a Statesmanlike fashion, I am quite sure Hamas would be ready and willing to see a deal completed in double quick time." You mean it's not incumbent upon Hamas to not act in a terroristlike fashion? Your basing a conclusion on pure hyperbolic inference. What we ARE sure of, is the Hamas charter, and the proclivity of Hamas to not abide by their agreements. What you personally believe Hamas "would" do, doesn't mesh with the reality of what Hamas DOES do. Again, Israel withdrew unilaterally from gaza, and was met with a major increase of rocket attacks. That very basic point eludes you at every single turn of this argument.
"There were 8 years of rocket fire as a "real event." How much rocket fire is there now?" ADSD To which the answer is about the same as there was for 8 years before Cast Lead. Your verbal diaohrea notwithstanding. You said 8years right? Not one year or one month or 12 months but 8 years. "THE blockade was instituted in 2007, after several additional years of rocket fire and the Gaza elections" adsd blockhead inc.ADSD is apparently mentally disabled so cant click on a link to The Washington Post given by JS which discusses the 2006 siege even if its shoved under his fat empty head. See this below dork? Its a url for the W.Post about the siege going strong in 2006. Get your friend to paste it into your address bar and then ask him to read it out loud to you. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700768.html
Last post on this one. With the greatest of respect, it was Albert Einstein who said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You have said I don't know how many times that the PLO agreed to amend their charter at Oslo at some unspecified time in the 'then' future. So let Hamas agree to amend their charter at some unspecified time in the future, hopefully less than the 3 years it took the PLO. Meshal has already said as much. Face to face negotiations were called for at Oslo and agreed upon beforehand. Not so now. Israel and Fatah are engaged in the charade that is Oslo and it does NOT call for face to face negotiations with ANYONE else BUT the PA and Israeli gov. As for what 'mode' Hamas are in. Well I would imagine that they are in the same mode as the PLO after their exit from Beirut, Israel having destroyed much of Lebanon in the process of evicting them. It took many more years before the PLO would jump at the chance of Oslo. Hamas however have not yet been eviscerated and as such may be more amenable to a speedier solution but not one as advantageous to Israel as Oslo. They were ready after their election for Abbas to do the deed. However the US and Israel were none too keen and they rather set about removing Hamas from its status as the governing party in great haste. Were Israel to act in a Statesmanlike fashion, I am quite sure Hamas would be ready and willing to see a deal completed in double quick time. No need for *canards* such as face to face meets and amending charters.
"Between Hamas? takeover and the start of the Tahadiya (State of Calm), (June 14, 2007 ? June 16, 2008), there was an average of over 361 attacks per month" June to June is 1 year. 361 x 12 is over 4300. What grade are you in, tzadick?
I suppose the following words didn't make an impression upon that vacuum between your ears... "Between Hamas' takeover and the start of the Tahadiya (State of Calm), (June 14, 2007 ? June 16, 2008), there was an average of over 361 attacks per month" In other words, that amounts to over 4300 in a year. You refer to OTHERS as illiterate?
Speaking of illiteracy: "Between Hamas? takeover and the start of the Tahadiya (State of Calm), (June 14, 2007 ? June 16, 2008), there was an average of over 361 attacks per month" 361 x 12 = 4332, clueless dolt. Is June 2007 to June 2008 an 8 year period, mental midget?
you cloth head Check the link plonker. "They give a total up to 2008 of 4,248." ((((TOTAL)))) UP TO 2008 numbskull. Thats less than 600 per year Mr Mensa. Why does JS bother with a complete illiterate?
"Tim I suggest you see my first post to you at #335 then compare it to your first post to me at #340. Then neither will I quibble"(Syracuse) Fine, I agree, I said I won't quibble. My post was longer because I quoted your full texts which I answered point by point. Then your response became even longer etc ... OK I started it, I admit it but I still agree with Whisky/Bravo's comment. That's why I decided to answer each point of yours in a separate post. You can do as you please, I will answer you whichever way you will choose to post. And from time to time, I too might choose to make a long post. Who cares, this is only a minor side issue ...
Maybe tzadick thinks 1000 cited by syracuse is the same amount as 4000 in the year preceding the lull. I just shake my head in pity.
"If Hamas and Fatah can agree on a reconciliation"(Syracuse) The big "IF" ... "( separate issue and not likely without the US and Israels blessing)"(Syracuse) Or subject to Hamas's willingness to do so which in turn is subject to Iran's blessing ... "then Israel and the PA attempt to reach an agreement by whatever process. At the ensuing discussions a prerequisite for Hamas to alter its charter before any agreement can be ratified by either party can then be made"(Syracuse) But even the PA is refusing to negotiate without imposing pre-conditions. So even that is a big "IF" now ... "but apart from you and some over zealous talk backers who would rather preserve the status quo"(Syracuse) If by "Status Quo" you mean "The long term viability and existence of Israel" then count me in on that .... "Of course you could also ask Hamas to swear by the Quran that Jews are the chosen people granted the land by gods decree..."(Syracuse) We could, but most of us don't and never have asked for such conditions ....
"In August 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin insisted on changes to the Charter as part of the Oslo Accords. Following Yasser Arafat`s commitment to "submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval" the changes to the Charter confirming that "those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel`s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid" [4] in the September 9, 1993 letters of mutual recognition"(Wikipedia) It says that letters of mutual recognition were exchanged in 1993 (NOT 1996). Moreover there were direct face to face meetings and negotiations between Rabin and Arafat and there seemed to be a suitable atmosphere of peace ... Are you saying that Hamas is in that mode now? Would they be willing to do that? Are you saying that If they are/would be, Israel would NOT reciprocate? Clearly NOT because Hamas always refused and still refuses to have direct face to face negotiations with Israel, let alone exchange letters of mutual recognition. That?s why your PLO/Oslo canard does NOT apply Syracuse and that?s why, contrary to your claims, Hamas is NOT serious about peace with Israel. It DOES however seems to be very serious about it's often repeated hostility about the mere existence of Israel!
Stop quibbling about the exact year when the blockade was instituted and answer the pertinent point that I raised in my original post of #450: "In 2005 there was NO blockade of Gaza. In fact Israel withdrew from Gaza unilaterally. But all they got in return were more rockets unto the heads of 1 million Southern Israeli civilians. What was Hamas`s excuse then? If they really wanted peace with Israel, that was their perfect opportunity to advance peace instead of violence. Explain that Syracuse ..."(Tim R #450) Notice I did NOT mention 2007 at that stage, I mentioned 2005, a year in which there was DEFINITELY NO blockade but there were plenty of rockets. Now you showed an article talking a bout restrictions in 2006 (which is AFTER 2005, right Syracuse?) that was the year that Hamas won the elections. So I won't quibble, Israel might have imposed some restrictions at that stage too which it further tightened in 2007 after Hamas ousted Fatah in Gaza. The pertinent point is that there was NO blockade in 2005, but only the Israeli withdrawal. Yet the rockets, if anything, escalated after the withdrawal, explain Why, Syracuse?
"If Hamas and Fatah can agree on a reconciliation"(Syracuse) The big "IF" ... "( separate issue and not likely without the US and Israels blessing)"(Syracuse) Or subject to Hamas's willingness to do so which in turn is subject to Iran's blessing ... "then Israel and the PA attempt to reach an agreement by whatever process. At the ensuing discussions a prerequisite for Hamas to alter its charter before any agreement can be ratified by either party can then be made"(Syracuse) But even the PA is refusing to negotiate without imposing pre-conditions. So even that is a big "IF" now ... "but apart from you and some over zealous talk backers who would rather preserve the status quo"(Syracuse) If by "Status Quo" you mean "The long term viability and existence of Israel" then count me in on that .... "Of course you could also ask Hamas to swear by the Quran that Jews are the chosen people granted the land by gods decree..."(Syracuse) We could, but most of us don't and never have asked for such conditions ....
"In August 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin insisted on changes to the Charter as part of the Oslo Accords. Following Yasser Arafat`s commitment to "submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval" the changes to the Charter confirming that "those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel`s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid" [4] in the September 9, 1993 letters of mutual recognition"(Wikipedia) It says that letters of mutual recognition were exchanged in 1993 (NOT 1996). Moreover there were direct face to face meetings and negotiations between Rabin and Arafat and there seemed to be a suitable atmosphere of peace ... Are you saying that Hamas is in that mode now? Would they be willing to do that? Are you saying that If they are/would be, Israel would NOT reciprocate? Clearly NOT because Hamas always refused and still refuses to have direct face to face negotiations with Israel, let alone exchange letters of mutual recognition. That?s why your PLO/Oslo canard does NOT apply Syracuse and that?s why, contrary to your claims, Hamas is NOT serious about peace with Israel. It DOES however seems to be very serious about it's often repeated hostility about the mere existence of Israel!
"Tim I suggest you see my first post to you at #335 then compare it to your first post to me at #340. Then neither will I quibble"(Syracuse) Fine, I agree, I said I won't quibble. My post was longer because I quoted your full texts which I answered point by point. Then your response became even longer etc ... OK I started it, I admit it but I still agree with Whisky/Bravo's comment. That's why I decided to answer each point of yours in a separate post. You can do as you please, I will answer you whichever way you will choose to post. And from time to time, I too might choose to make a long post. Who cares, this is only a minor side issue ...
Stop quibbling about the exact year when the blockade was instituted and answer the pertinent point that I raised in my original post of #450: "In 2005 there was NO blockade of Gaza. In fact Israel withdrew from Gaza unilaterally. But all they got in return were more rockets unto the heads of 1 million Southern Israeli civilians. What was Hamas`s excuse then? If they really wanted peace with Israel, that was their perfect opportunity to advance peace instead of violence. Explain that Syracuse ..."(Tim R #450) Notice I did NOT mention 2007 at that stage, I mentioned 2005, a year in which there was DEFINITELY NO blockade but there were plenty of rockets. Now you showed an article talking a bout a blockade in 2006 (which is AFTER 2005, right Syracuse?) that was the year that Hamas won the elections. So I won't quibble, Israel might have imposed some restrictions at that stage too which it further tightened in 2007 after Hamas ousted Fatah in Gaza. The pertinent point is that there was NO blockade in 2005, but only the Israeli withdrawal. Yet the rockets, if anything, escalated after the withdrawal, explain Why, Syracuse?
Even the Israel foreign affairs website which makes up propaganda faster than you can says "On December 27, 2008, after enduring an 8-year-long barrage of 12,000" which works out at 1500 per year.Only a gross exaggeration, but less than your dumb figures. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Gaza_Facts_website_launched_15-Sep-2009.htm The really honest straight as a die IDF probably added a couple more noughts for idiots like you who cant count in any case. The slightly less dishonest Jewish Policy Centre has the annual figures. Get a friend to count them up for you dickhead. They give a total up to 2008 of 4,248. So you can shove those other figures where they belong. In a dung heap. Alternatively, between your ears is available unused space. http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/prr/history.php
"No. That is still wrong. You still did not address the false aspect of your rhetorical question. Even without comparing the qassam fire with June Nov4th levels. Here, see if you can learn something obtuse one: http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/01/03/rocket-statistics-3-jan-2009/ "In fact a thousand projectiles a year is about the average for the entire period up to Nov 4th 2008" Between Hamas? takeover and the start of the Tahadiya (State of Calm), (June 14, 2007 ? June 16, 2008), there was an average of over 361 attacks per month That's FOUR TIMES, the figure you have claimed for the period. NOW would you say the rocket fire has been reduced? Everyone reported that there is less rocket fire than before the period of RELATIVE calm. You seemed to have missed the news. Does THIS entry address your myopia to your satisfaction?
""the `blockade` of Gaza which he[Johnboy] rightly points out began well before 2007"" There was "A" blockade instituted in response to the rocket fire, which escalated as soon as Israel pulled out of Gaza. THE blockade was instituted in 2007, after several additional years of rocket fire and the Gaza elections. Johnboy didn't "rightly" point out anything.
Me: "And far less than before the calm " SDHD Obtuse Syracuse: "Not what you said at first was it?" If it's part of the reality, why does it have to be mentioned immediately? The space is limited on these posts. My mentioning the week before is due to your acting as if there were other reasons for the operation. "Eight years is what you referred to not the period immediately before Cast Lead???" Are you incapable of digesting additional information during dialogs? Particularly when your posting style is misleading and lacks pertinent information and context? "Only later when it is brought to your attention that rocket firing is considerably higher than you realized" Except, it wasn't, "higher than I realized." Do you think additional information can't be added to an argument in which your premises lack pertinent refutations? "Oh but how a worm can wriggle." Isn't that what you are doing? Arguing a lack of validity due to a "why didn't you mention it before? basis?
That not only do we provide them with water but also That "GRID" is for electricity they benefit from. Thought I'd remind you. Adios p/s Your lst post was better/easier to read. Incidently we have a couple of others.i.e Roo and sometimes eric who indulge in long posts. Me thinks they,like you,must have worked as secretaries in some firm whereby you have NIBLE FINGERS to establish your long responses.
No danger this time,and much better than the one that could have filled a two page of A/4. However,the content within this last one is not accurate but just dispensing it with a load of hog wash. Gaza was never desperate.If they have the wherewithal to spend on their weaponry,surely it proves they are neither starving,nor in great need. Simple deduction:Israel has been sending truck loads of the necessary goods on a daily basis.Even paying the Gazans the salary owed to them when they worked in Israel proper. But then,you omit this part altogether. Also remember Israel provides them with water from the Ashkelon "GRID"where the terrorists attack it.Cutting their nose to spite their FACE. But nevermind,you take a one sided view and surprise. How disingenuous of you to forget it.
Tim R. Read your own source material before posting. Its self reinforcing [and the link given by you, does not provide the information you quote]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007?2010_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip "The 2007 Siege or Blockade of Gaza started in June 2007 when Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza. This has had support from USA, among other nations"(Wikipedia) Tim R Assuming the wiki quote is accurate represented. You claim that quoting sources is problematic and suggest using our "own logic instead" [#443]. So how 'logically' can a 2007 blockade start any other time than 2007. Tim, speaking of logic, do you know what a tautology is? What however [shock of shocks]if there was a 2006 blockade for example. Like this one: "Israel has enforced a blockade, allowing almost no goods to leave Gaza and only limited food supplies to enter. Most industry has shut down. Electricity and water services have been intermittent since Israel bombed the main power station here". 28 August 2006. Washington Post. A right of center pro Israel newspaper. 'Israeli Siege Leaves Gaza Isolated and Desperate' http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700768.html Which is why, my claim in #452 that: "the `blockade` of Gaza which he[Johnboy] rightly points out began well before 2007" is clearly correct and your wiki refutation does in fact Not refute it one iota. However the blockade of 2007 which you bring forth, certainly must have begun in 2007!!! Groan...
"Just for the record though, you were the one who started the long posts so I inevitably had to follow you but I won`t quibble about it ..." Tim I suggest you see my first post to you at #335 then compare it to your first post to me at #340. Then neither will I quibble. I estimate yours to be close to twice as long? Its a salutary point. Perception is a strange thing. How we choose to remember things[who started the long posts] is really quite a good approximation of how we conduct some of these arguments. With our very own rose tinted spectacles. I would prefer to send one long post to 2 not quite so long ones simply because the censor is not so often at his desk and getting posts on can be a chore. In any case the 8 posts you sent have as much to get through if not more than the 3 I sent you, no? Whiskey Bravo need not read them of course. I have only briefly glanced over your later posts as of now. Lets keep the issues a bit more constrained as neither of us have all day[I dont midweek at any rate] Wiki is a good source? In my experience it is ONLY if you check the sources for the wiki quotes themselves in which case you can quote 'them' with some confidence. Some wiki entries are by anonymous editors without references. You claimed "They [Hamas] want to be taken seriously? Why don`t they just change the charter."(Tim R) I responded with "Why this IS a canard Tim R. You see, the PLO didn`t change their charter(to Netanyahu`s satisfaction)before Oslo or even at Oslo or even right after Oslo but until 1996"(Syracuse). Your wiki piece clearly supports my argument. Until the two parties sat face to face at Oslo, there was no question of any demand for the PLO to alter its charter unilaterally as a condition of any progress toward an agreement. 'Exactly' the point I made. It was not a condition of talks or progress prior to Oslo and neither is it anything more than a fig leaf for over zealous talk backers who would be the last ones to accept progress or conciliatory moves regarding the Palestinians, especially Hamas. All I argue is that it is a red herring and can be dealt with during negotiations without much fuss.Thanks for substantiating my point. So here is a 'logical' sequence that may be suggested by my premise, and your reinforcement of it. Hamas and Israel need not engage in face to face talks at all as already explained. If Hamas and Fatah can agree on a reconciliation( separate issue and not likely without the US and Israels blessing )then Israel and the PA attempt to reach an agreement by whatever process. At the ensuing discussions a prerequisite for Hamas to alter its charter before any agreement can be ratified by either party can then be made. Of course you could just insist that nothing moves without Hamas altering its charter first, but apart from you and some over zealous talk backers who would rather preserve the status quo who at all is even suggesting this? Of course you could also ask Hamas to swear by the Quran that Jews are the chosen people granted the land by gods decree. That way they can never renege on any agreement! There are thousands of other inventive means to stall progress. See Dov Weisglass for more examples.
*sigh*? No laughing my head off! You had to resort by reading my few short somewhat unimpressive posts you found to criticise me? I call this desperation old fellow. Your response had no relation to what I said about your overly long posts that were firstly constipated i.e trying so hard to squeeze in as much as you can,then in one big sweep nothing but the verbal diarrhoea. You said:If I find it boring (don?t read them) Yup that is exactly what I did. Of course I noticed Tim R's so-called long post. But with a great difference. His was a regularly written in short paragraphs reading it quickly with ease, And easily digested. SDHD?s too are concise/to the point. JB?s too are the same as Tim R (JB don?t be flattered) Reflectively why are we dwelling on this stupid subject anyway? I had to respond to tell [you] Come down from your high and mighty perch And stop being puerile..
"So NOW you are claiming that Cast Lead the operation planned and prepared for since before June 2008" You mean, after 8 years of rocket fire, there would be no plan? How stupid do you think modern armies are supposed to be? They endure several years of rocket fire, and never draft a plan on how to carry on in case they find it necessary to conduct an incursion? I've gotta tell you, Israel's army isn't as stupid and ill-prepared as your arguments. "Yet I am delusional. Tiresome." You must hear that a lot, that's why it comes so easily to your mind. "Insults handed out like confetti don`t prove much about your knowledge or even common sense beyond the lack of either. Cheerio." They're not supposed to. They're provide humor to others regarding particularly pompous, delusional buffoons who frequently, disproportionately, and ignorantly portray an entire group in such a pitiful light. Now don't worry about the insults, they're spice for the meat you have trouble digesting.
"And far less than before the calm " SDHD Not what you said at first was it? "There were 8 years of rocket fire as a "real event." How much rocket fire is there now?" SDHD Eight years is what you referred to not the period immediately before Cast Lead??? Only later when it is brought to your attention that rocket firing is considerably higher than you realized and much higher than in the June Nov lull, you come up this: "Don`t foret the pre-Cast Lead rocket barrages -- average 80 per day for roughly a week." Oh but how a worm can wriggle. So NOW you are claiming that Cast Lead the operation planned and prepared for since before June 2008 was about stopping the rocket barrage that ensued post IDF raid on Nov 4th 2008 and hence achieved its prime objective. Yet I am delusional. Tiresome. Ever thought of writing a header without words like delusional dunce bufoon dolt sucks deaf dumb and blind double dunce. Let me give you a tip. Insults handed out like confetti don't prove much about your knowledge or even common sense beyond the lack of either. Cheerio.
As for the brevity of Tims posts I suggest you check out his latest tranche. His 6 to my earlier 3.Then do a word count comparing those 6 them to my 3 :) Having seen some of your posts on here I would strongly recommend you take a break. I spot one of yours which appears about a mile long.at #263 would you call cut and pasting huge excerpts of other peoples work without references or citations anything less than boring and deceitful? Then again I see at #271 where you do appear a little strange: "If you are,then you sure belong to the "Hymies"...HA HA HA HA HA EH EH Yah!" 'HA HA HA HA HA EH EH Yah' ?? I now see another on one of the other talk backs where you are haranguing another poster. "Zeev I cannot remember exactly what I wrote in my original pot. Suffice to say I stand by what I said". #371 whiskey bravo http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1150799.html Yes always best to stand by what you said when you cant remember what it was. Whiskey Bravo, perhaps you are too concerned with other peoples posts to actually take the time to write something of your own which might be vaguely interesting?
Should I comment on this one? Let me think about it for a micro second ..... Nah, waste of time ....
"All terrorists(Israels 9000 Palestinian prisoners)who were caught while they were conspiring to or committing terror acts against Israeli civilians."(Tim R) "Even those hundreds of women and children held without charge Tim? My you have done your homework. Then there are the dozens of Hamas legislators who were taken merely for being Hamas rather than planning any terrorist acts"(Syracuse) Listen to yourself and your violin Syracuse, soon you will have everyone convinced that the thousands of innocent Israeli civilians including women and children had NOTHING to do with Hamas and that those Israelis just spontaneously combusted? You are trying to tug at emotions and one sidedly at that instead of looking at the facts. There are innocents suffering on BOTH sides but Hamas bears the lion share of the responsibility because Hamas are the war mongers. So go complain to them Syracuse ...
"The academic study on violent escalations since 2000 was conducted by Jewish academics amongst others, not raging anti semites"(Syracuse) Their Jewishness has nothing to do with it but their ideology does. I too can quote you Arab/Muslim sources who adopt a pro-Israeli position. But I am sure they won't impress you, just as much as your sources don't impress me. Personally, I would rather look at the picture myself, join the dots and make my own conclusions based on information/input (not spoon-fed input but facts) from a variety of sources, preferably NON biased ones ... "Nevertheless the other references I gave were of former Mossad and Shin Bet luminaries or chiefs. I thought you might find them more palatable"(Syracuse) I accepted that input, he was just a postman and he certainly did not back up your position about the true intent of Hamas. He just mentioned that Hamas was willing to enter a 30 year Hudna. In fact, what he said, supported my case that Hamas does not want to conclude a permanent peace deal with Israel.
"Tim. If you are agreeing with Whiskey Bravo on the length of my posts, I would have thought you might consider shortening your own too!"(Syracuse) Yes I agree, that's why I said the following: "So, I`ll address each of YOUR canards in a separate post"(Tim R) Just for the record though, you were the one who started the long posts so I inevitably had to follow you but I won't quibble about it ... As for whether I am keen or not to pursue the conversation, I'll say this to you: I will respond to your posts as long as you wish to post ...
SDHD: "Your corner is the corner of unfounded assumptions" This issue is going to make it all the way to the icc, sunshine, unless Israel launches its own independent judicial inquiry. SDHD: " Wait till decisions are made before you comment about the decisions of decision-makers." Unless Israel launches its own independent judicial inquiry, this is going to make it all the way to the icc, smug-boy. He who laughs last laughs best, SDHD, and NOBODY in the Israeli govt is smirking about this. That smirk got wiped from their face quite some time ago.
"You claim that the commentariate is on your side. Debatable, but I`ll suggest that I have the decision-makers on my side. I know who I`d prefer in my corner, Tim....." Your corner is the corner of unfounded assumptions. Wait till decisions are made before you comment about the decisions of decision-makers. You're like a post pubescent teen, running around, all excited in the hopes of catching a glimpse of something exciting and .... Oops! Better go clean up now.
" Deal with this falsehood first SDHD" That would be YOUR falsehood. me: "There were 8 years of rocket fire as a "real event." How much rocket fire is there now?" Syr: "Nearly a thousand since Cast Lead. Far more than during the June Nov calm. " Don't foret the pre-Cast Lead rocket barrages -- average 80 per day for roughly a week. "You asked the question noted above. I responded with an answer which clearly renders the premise of your rhetorical question false." Your knowledge is full of fictions. "That the operation Cast Lead succeeded in ending qassam fire.Ergo..." Now you're just lying. I never said any such thing. But the 80/day has been reduced dramatically, hasn't it? "Only it didn`t end it SDHD. Did it?" I never claimed it did, fruitloop. " It seems too easy for you to make an entirely inaccurate statement and then move on." Your claiming that I made such a statement is the inaccuracy.
Tim, I don't think the COMMENTARIATE - in any country, least of all Australi - gets to actually make the decisions. That's why they are called the "commentariate", and not the "decision makers". You claim that the commentariate is on your side. Debatable, but I'll suggest that I have the decision-makers on my side. I know who I'd prefer in my corner, Tim.....
And J.S claims the wrong interpretation Where did you see any of my posts that were long? Even JB, Tim R, SDHD do not indulge writing a post as long as your A/4- Page- full responses. It is not so much as boring , it is time consuming. Or perhaps this is a form of diverting posters from getting away quickly. Thus keeping them from advancing their view points to be published? Unless of course you expect them to be able & use the fast mechanism of their brain power at play. Tricky very tricky that. Wish I'd thought of this tactic.
"That the operation Cast Lead succeeded in ending qassam fire. Ergo..." Ergo, you're imagining things. Who said Cast Lead ended the qassam fire? "Only it didn`t end it SDHD. Did it? " Never said it did. What planet are you on? "It seems too easy for you to make an entirely inaccurate statement and then move on." That's precisely what you have just done. " I would ask that you deal with that issue or withdraw the statement, " You want me to withdraw a statement I never made? me: "There were 8 years of rocket fire as a "real event." How much rocket fire is there now?" Syr: "Nearly a thousand since Cast Lead. Far more than during the June Nov calm. " Cast Lead was launched because the Palestinians were launching about 80 rockets a day for roughly a week. Try to get your facts straight.
"To add to Johnboy`s comments on the start and nature of the `blockade` of Gaza which he rightly points out began well before 2007"(Syracuse) Really? Then I'll give you the same reference that I gave to Johnboy. Have you read it? Please don't just ignore it ... Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and the blockade on Gaza was initiated in 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007?2010_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip "The 2007 Siege or Blockade of Gaza started in June 2007 when Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza. This has had support from USA, among other nations"(Wikipedia) As for the rest of your post, I'll only answer it if you answer my earlier question: If Israel's blockade was the excuse for Hamas's rocket fire on Israeli civilians then how come the rockets were being lobbed onto the heads of Israeli civilians BEFORE the blockade? Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and dismantled ALL it's Gaza settlements yet Hamas continued playing their Russian Roulette with Israeli civilians by lobbing rockets at them. How come Syracuse?
"This [the Right of Return] is one of those canards most easily dismissed. Hamas have said over and over they will allow Abbas to negotiate the terms of a settlement with Israel and that even if they oppose it they will be subject to the will of the Palestinian people"(Syracuse) I have already commented about your canard that Hamas will abide by what Abbas would do. Once again: Here is a reality check for you: Hamas and Abbass's men, throw each other's foot soldiers off roofs, break each other's legs and murder each other. I'll say no more ... Now let's see the PAs position regarding the so called Right of Return: "In a series of polished statements, the PA minister related to the return of refugees as a practical solution - and even as a precondition - to a final status agreement. Speaking on Friday at a Beirut gathering that included refugee delegates, Sha'ath said the right of return to "Palestinian cities in the Jewish state" is an integral part of the Arab peace initiative, which is referred to by the road map as one of the fundamental elements of a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians"(Haaretz Feb 2010) Any questions, Syracuse? Or Are you saying that Haaretz is a rabid right wing publication?
No. That is still wrong. You still did not address the false aspect of your rhetorical question. Even without comparing the qassam fire with June Nov4th levels. In fact a thousand projectiles a year is about the average for the entire period up to Nov 4th 2008 from the beginning of the Intifada. (I invite you to do the maths).So still, the premise of your earlier rhetorical question and your revised claim is not valid, is it? In your post is the feigned outrage that Hamas smuggled weapons even during the calm and prepared themselves militarily as best they could. I heard of asymmetric warfare, yours sounds like an asymmetric argument. (ie hypocrisy). Israel planned Cast Lead before the truce was even started! They imported large amounts of munitions (no need for tunnels)for the sole purpose of Cast Lead. They trained and prepared for Cast Lead for over 6 months, they launched deadly raids into Gaza, yet you have it as 'Hamas unilaterally broke the ceasefire'. The terms of which you to have to hand I presume? Too one sided for words.
"Israel: Should lift the blockade ...In return, Hamas: Should release Gilad Shalit. "(Tim R) "Israel can forget about Shalit if they want"(Syracuse) Easy for you to say. Did you say the same thing when the Aytolahs of Iran held the American embassy hostages? Did you advocate that Americans should forget THEIR hostages and lift the crippling sanctions against Iran? " however they will not end the siege even for the return of Shalit. It is my opinion that they would rather he rot than pay the price of ending the economic siege"(Syracuse) YES EXACTLY! IT IS YOUR OPINION, based on nothing ... Another way to put it is that it is just your assertion. So, I'll just ignore this bit till we can see facts and actual events. And I hope most reasonable people would see it my way...
"All terrorists(Israels 9000 Palestinian prisoners)who were caught while they were conspiring to or committing terror acts against Israeli civilians."(Tim R) "Even those hundreds of women and children held without charge Tim? My you have done your homework. Then there are the dozens of Hamas legislators who were taken merely for being Hamas rather than planning any terrorist acts"(Syracuse) Listen to yourself and your violin Syracuse, soon you will have everyone convinced that the thousands of innocent Israeli civilians including women and children had NOTHING to do with Hamas and that those Israelis just spontaneously combusted? You are trying to tug at emotions and one sidedly at that instead of looking at the facts. There are innocents suffering on BOTH sides but Hamas bears the lion share of the responsibility because Hamas are the war mongers. So go complain to them Syracuse ...
"The academic study on violent escalations since 2000 was conducted by Jewish academics amongst others, not raging anti semites"(Syracuse) Their Jewishness has nothing to do with it but their ideology does. I too can quote you Arab/Muslim sources who adopt a pro-Israeli position. But I am sure they won't impress you, just as much as your sources don't impress me. Personally, I would rather look at the picture myself, join the dots and make my own conclusions based on information/input (not spoon-fed input but facts) from a variety of sources, preferably NON biased ones ... "Nevertheless the other references I gave were of former Mossad and Shin Bet luminaries or chiefs. I thought you might find them more palatable"(Syracuse) I accepted that input, he was just a postman and he certainly did not back up your position about the true intent of Hamas. He just mentioned that Hamas was willing to enter a 30 year Hudna. In fact, what he said, supported my case that Hamas does not want to conclude a permanent peace deal with Israel.
"Hamas won`t even negotiate with Israel face to face because they don`t recognize "Them evil Zionists ...".(Tim R) "That tells me that you are distracting from the real issues Tim. Firstly, Hamas have frequently engaged in negotiations with third party"(Syracuse) How so Syracuse? Are you listening? Hamas does not want to negotiate with Israel DIRECTLY - FACE TO FACE - because they don't want to recognize Israel's right to exist. "Secondly, under the so called Oslo agreement Israel is required to negotiate directly with the PA and its President not any particular group. Hamas have stated numerous times that they accept the right of Abbas to negotiate directly with Israel, as required"(Syracuse) Really, Syracuse? And you don't call this one a canard? In case you don't remember, Hamas and the PA's president, Abbas hate each other with a passion. What's my evidence? They torture each other's foot soldiers, murder each other by throwing people off the roof ... And you are trying to that Hamas would abide by anything that Abbas and his PA come up with? You must be joking ?
"They [Hamas] want to be taken seriously? Why don`t they just change the charter."(Tim R) "Why this IS a canard Tim R. You see, the PLO didn`t change their charter(to Netanyahu`s satisfaction)before Oslo or even at Oslo or even right after Oslo but until 1996"(Syracuse) The canard is yours, Syracuse. Here is the real story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Covenant#The_Charter_and_the_question_of_Israel.27s_right_to_exist "In August 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin insisted on changes to the Charter as part of the Oslo Accords. Following Yasser Arafat`s commitment to "submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval" the changes to the Charter confirming that "those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel`s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid" [4] in the September 9, 1993 letters of mutual recognition"(Wikipedia)
"I and people like me don`t however believe that it is moot to neglect their job (the UN) because such neglect leads to lawlessness ..."(Tim R) "Tim, I think you are being somewhat disingenuous. The lawlessness that bothers most of the world includes the numerous egregious attacks on occupied territories by a well oiled military machine which results in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians"(Syracuse) Really Syracuse? Why is it lawless for a country to defend it's civilians who were under constant rocket attack by Hamas for 8 years? Is it because Israel has "a well oiled military"? Because if it is, you might also explain to us what Obama's well oiled military are doing in Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong, I support what he is doing there but judging by YOUR disingenuous comment about Israel, surely you should feel the same way about what your country is doing in Afghanistan?
... more Hamas cease-fire violations "There were 8 years of rocket fire as a "real event." How much rocket fire is there now [after Operation Cas Lead]?"(SDHD) "Nearly a thousand since Cast Lead. Far more than during the June Nov calm"(Syracuse) "ISRAEL, HAMAS AGREE TO CEASE-FIRE Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced on Saturday that Israel was declaring a unilateral cease-fire following an intensive three-week military campaign in the Gaza Strip, in which more than 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed. Hamas followed suit on Sunday, saying it and its Islamist allies in the Gaza Strip would cease violence immediately and give Israel a week to withdraw from the territory"(Christian Science Monitor) Israel did withdraw within a week yet by your own admission, Syracuse, there were nearly 1000 additional rockets lobbed at Israel since. Please explain ... http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/0118/with-gaza-cease-fire-arab-and-european-leaders-look-to-secure-peace
1) I never said Cast Lead ended Qassam fire. 2) You conveniently omit that Cast Lead was in direct response to a week's worth of rocket fire, of approximately 80 rockets a day on average. 3) Israel provided Hamas with plenty of advanced warning to terminate their escalated rocket fire, and Hamas ignored the warnings. 4) The rocket fire into Israel has been reduced substantially, given the 8-year average preceding the operation, and most certainly given the week before the operation was launched. Now, you can stop uttering falsehoods and being dishonestly selective regarding the time periods you choose to compare to one another.
Write such looong and superfluous posts. Not even your favored JB,which you seem to admire. Howzat JS? politician he is not,writing on subjects not entirely precise either. Please no false accusations that I write long posts..In in your confused mind perhaps hmmm. No one is stopping you writing such long and boring posts.Feel free,but ultimately most people will not be bothered to read through it completely. On paragragh at most,and they'll get the gist of it. Think about it..
"Tim. If you are agreeing with Whiskey Bravo on the length of my posts, I would have thought you might consider shortening your own too!"(Syracuse) Yes I agree, that's why I said the following: "So, I`ll address each of YOUR canards in a separate post"(Tim R) Just for the record though, you were the one who started the long posts so I inevitably had to follow you but I won't quibble about it ... As for whether I am keen or not to pursue the conversation, I'll say this to you: I will respond to your posts as long as you wish to post ...
"That the operation Cast Lead succeeded in ending qassam fire." That's YOUR falsehood. I never said it ended qassam fire. "Only it didn`t end it SDHD. Did it?" When did I ever say it did? " It seems too easy for you to make an entirely inaccurate statement and then move on." The inaccurate statement is yours exclusively. "I would ask that you deal with that issue or withdraw the statement, or there is no point in any further discussion." I just dealt with the issue. You're making things up. ""Nearly a thousand since Cast Lead. Far more than during the June Nov calm. "" Cast Lead was in response to an average of 80 rockets a day for a week. What's the per-day average since then?
"And far less than before the calm " SDHD No. That is still wrong. You still did not address the false aspect of your rhetorical question. Even without comparing the qassam fire with June Nov4th levels. In fact a thousand projectiles a year is about the average for the entire period up to Nov 4th 2008 from the beginning of the Intifada. (I invite you to do the maths).So still, the premise of your earlier rhetorical question and your revised claim is not valid, is it? In your post is the feigned outrage that Hamas smuggled weapons even during the calm and prepared themselves militarily as best they could. I heard of asymmetric warfare, yours sounds like an asymmetric argument. (ie hypocrisy). Israel planned Cast Lead before the truce was even started! They imported large amounts of munitions (no need for tunnels)for the sole purpose of Cast Lead. They trained and prepared for Cast Lead for over 6 months, they launched deadly raids into Gaza, yet you have it as 'Hamas unilaterally broke the ceasefire'. The terms of which you to have to hand I presume? Too one sided for words.
me: "There were 8 years of rocket fire as a "real event." How much rocket fire is there now?" Syr: "Nearly a thousand since Cast Lead. Far more than during the June Nov calm. " SYR: "You asked the question noted above. I responded with an answer which clearly renders the premise of your rhetorical question false." It does nothing of the sort. On average, there were more rockets fired over the 8 year period than there is now. There is certainly less rocket fire than after the truce, right? "That the operation Cast Lead succeeded in ending qassam fire.Ergo... Only it didn`t end it SDHD. Did it?" Dummy. I never said it ended the rocket fire, but it has been reduced tremendously. " It seems too easy for you to make an entirely inaccurate statement and then move on." The inaccurate statement is yours. I never said what you claimed. " I would ask that you deal with that issue or withdraw the statemen" My statement stands. Less rocket fire than before Cast Lead.
me: "There were 8 years of rocket fire as a "real event." How much rocket fire is there now?" Syr: "Nearly a thousand since Cast Lead. Far more than during the June Nov calm. " And far less than before the calm (which the Palestinians used to smuggle in additional weapons and build up civilian areas to be used for military purposes). Again, the Palestinians had a perfect opportunity to take a step toward peace, and screwed it up several times along the way. Israel withdrew from Gaza... They increased rocket attacks. They had a ceasefire agreement... And breached it by smuggling arms into Gaza, digging a tunnel into Israel, and still launching rockets into Israel nonetheless.
me: "There were 8 years of rocket fire as a "real event." How much rocket fire is there now?" Syr: "Nearly a thousand since Cast Lead. Far more than during the June Nov calm. " You asked the question noted above. I responded with an answer which clearly renders the premise of your rhetorical question false. That the operation Cast Lead succeeded in ending qassam fire.Ergo... Only it didn't end it SDHD. Did it? It seems too easy for you to make an entirely inaccurate statement and then move on. I would ask that you deal with that issue or withdraw the statement, or there is no point in any further discussion.
Tim. If you are agreeing with Whiskey Bravo on the length of my posts, I would have thought you might consider shortening your own too! #416,434,399,374, 340 are all yours and they too are all long posts. Actually I thought we were both addressing each others points of which quite a number were made. As I said to Whiskey, if you are not keen I shall not pursue the conversation any further.
Just seen your earlier post. "So you see why it is a diversionary tactic to bring this irrelevant issue up, don?t you? " No. Something I would suggest. If you are bored by long posts best not write them yourselves, let alone two on the same subject just in order to tell me you are bored. I would imagine that people who find it difficult to concentrate beyond a couple of short paragraphs without losing the thread are best suited to non political blogs. Have you considered a lifestyle blog or perhaps a blog which reflects your own interests or hobbies. Such a waste of your time otherwise, passing on your disapproval of others writing styles or length of posts in two such posts as you have just delivered is hardly good use of ones own time, is it?
Not much honesty in that boy's arguments, is there? "The June 2007 "announcement" of a blockade simply made official something that had been in place since the beginning of the "disengagement"." When did Hamas increase rocket attacks on Israel after the disengagement and what was the excuse, numbskull? Israel should have just let that happen, or what? Why didn't Hamas use that period to take reciprocal action instead of increasing rocket fire into Israel? Are you that much of a self-blinded, anti-Israel idiot that you can't admit Hamas destroyed a perfect opportunity?
I am happy to deal with any issues you raise but I would ask you be a little more precise or clear about what it is you are concerned with. Brevity? Well complex issues sometimes deserve a little more detail and Tim's posts were quite extensive too.We both addressed some of each other's points.As for Tim not needing 'further information', I might be wrong but I get the impression that Tim is an adult and quite able to speak up for himself if he'd rather not have 'further information'. If that's the case I shan't bother him. 'What the situation is NOW'.Well then again you raise a NOW issue and I'll respond if the censor permits. But considering 'NOW' rarely permits dismissing what goes before, in my experience.
"Simply" sums up everything you do quite well, but no you were actually saying this thick head. " You spelled something as simple as, "it's" wrong before. How dumb are you obsessed one? Spanish warrant, British Court, and no trial, but release for Pinochet. Versus: Interest groups and some dumb judge, causing embarrassment to the British government on the other. How's the air quality up there, tzadik?
So, I'll address each of YOUR canards in a separate post, let's start with your first one: "They [Hamas] want to be taken seriously? Why don`t they just change the charter."(Tim R) "Why this IS a canard Tim R. You see, the PLO didn`t change their charter(to Netanyahu`s satisfaction)before Oslo or even at Oslo or even right after Oslo but until 1996"(Syracuse) Now let's have the REAL story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Covenant#The_Charter_and_the_question_of_Israel.27s_right_to_exist "In August 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin insisted on changes to the Charter as part of the Oslo Accords. Following Yasser Arafat's commitment to "submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval" the changes to the Charter confirming that "those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid" [4] in the September 9, 1993 letters of mutual recognition"(Wikipedia) So, a letter to nullify the PLO charter was written RIGHT at the beginning in 1993. Sure, the formality was taken care of later in 1996. Now here is my question AGAIN: "They [Hamas] want to be taken seriously? Why don`t they write a letter of intent indicating that they WILL formally change the charter?"(Tim R)
"Israel has taken schoolkids and women, several hundred of them. Many held without charge." It's known as a war. Imagine setting up a trial for every combatant captured in a war? "They also took dozens of Hamas `legislators` hostage." Oh? Did they set a ransom for their release? If so, tell us what the ransom demands were. Me: "Releasing prisoners with blood on their hands" Syr: "Like Israeli military and politicians don`t have the blood of nearly two thousand Gazan civilians killed this decade on `their` hands." You pretended that it was no big deal to exchange these prisoners. Cut the crap. It is reasonable for Israel not to release prisoners with blood on their hands into positions where they can murder again. me: "There were 8 years of rocket fire as a "real event." How much rocket fire is there now?" Syr: "Nearly a thousand since Cast Lead. Far more than during the June Nov calm. " The "calm" which was used for weapons smuggling and to dig a tunnel into Israel.
"Neither of you recall correctly: Israel instigated a blockade of Gaza from the very beginning of "disengagement"." Try June 2007, idiot.
Apart of being brief that you give credence to what Hamas says,shows your naivete. They say many things.One minute they make some pronouncement,and not even twenty four hors later..NAY WITHIN a few minutes they change the whole of their so-caled proposals or what ever. Funny you trying Tim R or anyone who know the the history and need not any further information that is getting rather old by now. Bottom line J Syracuse it is better for you to leave things be. The onus is not on Israel to deal with a TERROR ENTITY that the world do not recognize in any case. Find another appropriate subject by coming forward of what the situation is NOW. No point in dredging Oslo that was a disaster anyhow.
"I`m sure Tim R can come up with a world-wide conspiracy to explain why, ut maybe there is a simpler explanation..."(Johnboy) You claim to be from Australia, so I took the liberty of Googling what other Australians think about Goldstone. And what a surprise, my faith that there are many decent people out there was vindicated. This is what I came up with: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/uns-bias-binds-gaza/story-e6frg6ux-1225781825529 A story from one of Australia's national newspapers (as I understand) which clearly talks about a UN conspiracy. The article's title is: "UN's BIAS BINDS GAZA" Here is one quote from a very well written article: "This kind of report, with all its biases, is one of the reasons why the US did not subject its military to the International Criminal Court. The Goldstone report was the product of the Gaza fact-finding mission, which could never have been a judicial mission, given the inclusion of publicly biased members."(The Australian Newspaper) So you see JB old boy? I am NOT the only one talking of UN bias, many of your own countrymen disagree with you.
"Neither of you recall correctly: Israel instigated a blockade of Gaza from the very beginning of "disengagement"(Johnboy) Really? Now let's see: Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and the blockade on Gaza was initiated in 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007?2010_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip "The 2007 Siege or Blockade of Gaza started in June 2007 when Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza. This has had support from USA, among other nations"(Wikipedia) I'll give you a chance to admit that you just made a mistake. Otherwise, what would one conclude about your ability to tell the truth?
J.S brevity is the best way to present an argument.By writing such a long one only loses its meaning,plus it deviates from the truth. Let us take just one paragraph erroneous though it s:Secondly, under the so called Oslo agreement Israel is required to negotiate directly with the PA and its President not any particular group. Hamas have stated numerous times that they accept the right of Abbas to negotiate directly with Israel, as required. So you see why it is a diversionary tactic to bring this irrelevant issue up, don?t you? So if you do not pay credence that the Arabs in the region and the UN are not functionaries in obstructing by their vetoes at the UN,then your argument is REDUNDANT. Theirs is the power to meddle and obstuct and do so with impunity.You? are simply misconstruing the subject,writing a long winded response,that helps no one,other than having your post seen on the forum. I will not even bother to read part two. No patience to read EVEN PART 1
J.S brevity is the best way to present an argument.By writing such a long one only loses its meaning,plus it deviates from the truth. Let us take just one paragraph erroneous though it s:Secondly, under the so called Oslo agreement Israel is required to negotiate directly with the PA and its President not any particular group. Hamas have stated numerous times that they accept the right of Abbas to negotiate directly with Israel, as required. So you see why it is a diversionary tactic to bring this irrelevant issue up, don?t you? So if you do not pay credence that the Arabs in the region and the UN are not functionaries in obstructing by their vetoes at the UN,then your argument is REDUNDANT. Theirs is the power to meddle and obstuct and do so with impunity.You? are simply misconstruing the subject,writing a long winded response,that helps no one,other than having your post seen on the forum. I will not even bother to read part two. No patience to read EVEN PART 1
"I`m simply pointing out the British court arrested Pinochet on a Spanish warrant" "Simply" sums up everything you do quite well, but no you were actually saying this thick head. "The COURT was *INTERNATIONAL*, not a British kangaroo court" ADSD #77 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135497.html YOUR exact words schlemiel, with reference to your original post as detailed several times above already, most clearly in the 'puddinhead' post at #343. ...goodnight dumbkopf.
....how comes that nobody is saying that Hamas needs Goldstone? Exactly why,why???So I too say: THREE CHEERS FOR IAN IN NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE UK
To add to Johnboy's comments on the start and nature of the 'blockade' of Gaza which he rightly points out began well before 2007, I would point out that the so called disengagement or redeployment from Gaza was taken by Sharon not to secure a peace with Gaza,(hence their exclusion of the PA from any talks appertaining to the redeployment which would have aided Abbas greatly in the upcoming Palestinian elections rather than aiding Hamas which it did)but to do with gaining US recognition of the permanence of Israeli settlement in the West Bank. This was spelled out by the architect of the 'redeployment' Dov Wesiglass, in a language even the densest of right wingers might recognize. "The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians." How does that square with your contention Tim, that the act by Sharon and his Gov was an opportunity for Gazans to "advance peace instead of violence".At best your argument is extremely naïve. At worst it displays a cynical disregard for the events as they transpired and as they were openly intended to be and as elucidated by their chief architect.
"I and people like me don`t however believe that it is moot to neglect their job (the UN) because such neglect leads to lawlessness ..." Tim, I think you are being somewhat disingenuous. The lawlessness that bothers most of the world includes the numerous egregious attacks on occupied territories by a well oiled military machine which results in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians over the decades. Whether in Lebanon in the eighties or 2006 or 'Summer Rains' or 'Cast Lead' in the 2,000's. Lets stop blaming the victims for being killed and maimed in perpetuity by the worlds 5th most powerful (arguably) military machine. Nor is it happening because the UN does not take Israels side in UNGA. Never mind that they have permanent Veto protection in the UNSC that the so called Muslim Arab block have no influence over. This includes the hundreds of UNSC resolutions against Israel most of which have been vetoed by the US. "They want to be taken seriously? Why don`t they just change the charter." Tim R: Why this IS a canard Tim R. You see, the PLO didn't change their charter(to Netanyahu's satisfaction)before Oslo or even at Oslo or even right after Oslo but until 1996.Seveal years AFTER negotiations began between the PLO and Israel. So rendering your change the charter to show wiling request, to be nothing more than a diversionary tactic to grant a further excuse to delay taking measures to end the conflict. In the final analysis, amending their (PLO) charter has benefited the Palestinians not one jot. Hamas have understood this and know that they will gain no respect and no compromises from Israel for any such action unless as a part of a settlement (of which there is no sign). So when you ask "How do you expect Israel to negotiate with a party that reiterates (at every opportunity) that their final aim is to destroy Israel". I expect them to do no more than they did vis a vis the PLO Charter, Tim. "Hamas won`t even negotiate with Israel face to face because they don`t recognize "Them evil Zionists ...". That tells me that you are distracting from the real issues Tim. Firstly, Hamas have frequently engaged in negotiations with third party groups intermediating and this is as much to do with Israel as Hamas, so if you want face to face negotiations you can just as well address your query to the Israeli Gov. Secondly, under the so called Oslo agreement Israel is required to negotiate directly with the PA and its President not any particular group. Hamas have stated numerous times that they accept the right of Abbas to negotiate directly with Israel, as required. So you see why it is a diversionary tactic to bring this irrelevant issue up, don?t you? "I can quote academics who support my position but you would reject their claims as I reject your sources" I have quoted relatively few sources. The academic study on violent escalations since 2000 was conducted by Jewish academics amongst others, not raging anti semites. Nevertheless the other references I gave were of former Mossad and Shin Bet luminaries or chiefs. I thought you might find them more palatable.
Because his only means of defence is to hide behind Goldstone his patron,while most of us have for a long time understood the reasons behind Goldstone that JB finds refuge in. Failing this,he resorts by changing the whole subject delving in what had occurred in 2005 when we ceded Gaza. In Johnboy's warped mind he thinks once we left Gaza thing will automatically materialize into a peaceful way,and no further work for Israel. I mean we had to watch every step of the way how things would progress. And so he should understand(and does not)because he goes in a ONE WAY STREET ending in a CULDESAC. And progress did not occur.We had to be near and watch any developments---that JB persists we were still occupying it by proxi. I essense Johnboy is LOST in all his post he so desprerately tries to avert by CHANGING subjects. First it was the silly assumption of the driving and penalties etc,etc,,with much waffling.Having lost there oops up comes the Gaza insident BS
To add to Johnboy's comments on the start and nature of the 'blockade' of Gaza which he rightly points out began well before 2007, I would point out that the so called disengagement or redeployment from Gaza was taken by Sharon not to secure a peace with Gaza,(hence their exclusion of the PA from any talks appertaining to the redeployment which would have aided Abbas greatly in the upcoming Palestinian elections rather than aiding Hamas which it did)but to do with gaining US recognition of the permanence of Israeli settlement in the West Bank. This was spelled out by the architect of the 'redeployment' Dov Wesiglass, in a language even the densest of right wingers might recognize. "The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians." How does that square with your contention Tim, that the act by Sharon and his Gov was an opportunity for Gazans to "advance peace instead of violence".At best your argument is extremely naïve. At worst it displays a cynical disregard for the events as they transpired and as they were openly intended to be and as elucidated by their chief architect.
Why?because he only resorts to accept for his own hidden purpose escaping from his toughts by blindly finding an outlet in Goldstone as his mentor,altough most of his interlocuters heve pointed out the error of his ways. We are the anti Goldstonians,know Goldstone was wrong and his report has been D_E_B_U_N_K_E_D_. But Johnboys' has his only refuge is accepting Goldstone. To that I too prounce/say BS and ..Sheeesh!
"All terrorists(Israels 9000 Palestinian prisoners)who were caught while they were conspiring to or committing terror acts against Israeli civilians." Even those hundreds of women and children held without charge Tim? My you have done your homework. Then there are the dozens of Hamas legislators who were taken merely for being Hamas rather than planning any terrorist acts. In case you wish to study the nature of these often arbitrary arrests and the general approach to Palestinians in the OTs by the IDF a little more assiduously than you have done consider the following a useful primer: http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3841480,00.html Furthermore THOUSANDS of the Palestinians held are not charged. So how do you know why they are held Tim? Would it just be an assumption for which you need no evidence? In any case here is B'Tselems own more researched conclusion on the nature of the so called crimes committed that lead to imprisonment that you so casually refer to as terrorism. "Security is interpreted in an extremely broad manner such that non-violent speech and political activity are considered dangerous...[This] is a blatant contradiction of the right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion guaranteed under international law. If these same standards were applied inside Israel, half of the Likud party would be in administrative detention. " "Israel: Should lift the blockade ... In return, Hamas: Should release Gilad Shalit. " Israel can forget about Shalit if they want, however they will not end the siege even for the return of Shalit. It is my opinion that they would rather he rot than pay the price of ending the economic siege. The economic siege is central to their policy of ousting Hamas from its position of authority in Gaza. Now who is being naive Tim? "Israel should allow millions of Palestinian Arabs to "return" and live in Israel proper (the "right of return). That alone is a formula for Israel`s destruction (demographically) " This is one of those canards most easily dismissed. Hamas have said over and over they will allow Abbas to negotiate the terms of a settlement with Israel and that even if they oppose it they will be subject to the will of the Palestinian people. It should be evident that Abbas will not demand the full right of return and that an alternative formula will be acceptable to him as it was in Taba and Geneva.It is also generally accepted (excepting some n'erdowell rabid rightists) that the majority of Palestinians will accept some alternative formula for full ROR that will not involve huge numbers of refugees returning to Israel proper. Hence the lie that is the R.O.R canard.
"I and people like me don`t however believe that it is moot to neglect their job (the UN) because such neglect leads to lawlessness ..." Tim, I think you are being somewhat disingenuous. The lawlessness that bothers most of the world includes the numerous egregious attacks on occupied territories by a well oiled military machine which results in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians over the decades. Whether in Lebanon in the eighties or 2006 or 'Summer Rains' or 'Cast Lead' in the 2,000's. Lets stop blaming the victims for being killed and maimed in perpetuity by the worlds 5th most powerful (arguably) military machine. Nor is it happening because the UN does not take Israels side in UNGA. Never mind that they have permanent Veto protection in the UNSC that the so called Muslim Arab block have no influence over. This includes the hundreds of UNSC resolutions against Israel most of which have been vetoed by the US. "They want to be taken seriously? Why don`t they just change the charter." Tim R: Why this IS a canard Tim R. You see, the PLO didn't change their charter(to Netanyahu's satisfaction)before Oslo or even at Oslo or even right after Oslo but until 1996.Seveal years AFTER negotiations began between the PLO and Israel. So rendering your change the charter to show wiling request, to be nothing more than a diversionary tactic to grant a further excuse to delay taking measures to end the conflict. In the final analysis, amending their (PLO) charter has benefited the Palestinians not one jot. Hamas have understood this and know that they will gain no respect and no compromises from Israel for any such action unless as a part of a settlement (of which there is no sign). So when you ask "How do you expect Israel to negotiate with a party that reiterates (at every opportunity) that their final aim is to destroy Israel". I expect them to do no more than they did vis a vis the PLO Charter, Tim. "Hamas won`t even negotiate with Israel face to face because they don`t recognize "Them evil Zionists ...". That tells me that you are distracting from the real issues Tim. Firstly, Hamas have frequently engaged in negotiations with third party groups intermediating and this is as much to do with Israel as Hamas, so if you want face to face negotiations you can just as well address your query to the Israeli Gov. Secondly, under the so called Oslo agreement Israel is required to negotiate directly with the PA and its President not any particular group. Hamas have stated numerous times that they accept the right of Abbas to negotiate directly with Israel, as required. So you see why it is a diversionary tactic to bring this irrelevant issue up, don?t you? "I can quote academics who support my position but you would reject their claims as I reject your sources" I have quoted relatively few sources. The academic study on violent escalations since 2000 was conducted by Jewish academics amongst others, not raging anti semites. Nevertheless the other references I gave were of former Mossad and Shin Bet luminaries or chiefs. I thought you might find them more palatable.
"Israel has taken violent prisoners. Hamas took a HOSTAGE." A soldier captured by the enemy in a military action is a prisoner of war in every language, in every country. Israel has taken schoolkids and women, several hundred of them. Many held without charge.They also took dozens of Hamas 'legislators' hostage. "Releasing prisoners with blood on their hands" Like Israeli military and politicians don't have the blood of nearly two thousand Gazan civilians killed this decade on 'their' hands. "'There were 8 years of rocket fire as a "real event." How much rocket fire is there now?" Nearly a thousand since Cast Lead. Far more than during the June Nov calm. Still, don't let the facts concern you now.You never did before. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121833.html
TR: "In 2005 there was NO blockade of Gaza." SDHD: "If I recall correctly," Neither of you recall correctly: Israel instigated a blockade of Gaza from the very beginning of "disengagement". Look up your facts: The IDF "disengaged" from Gaza in September 2005, and immediately instigated a blockade so tight that Condi had to force Israeli into the November 2005 "Agreement on Movement and Access". An agreement that Israel signed and then repeatedly violated, precisely because it was not the least bit interested in loosening the screws on Gaza. The June 2007 "announcement" of a blockade simply made official something that had been in place since the beginning of the "disengagement".
"I`m sure Tim R can come up with a world-wide conspiracy to explain why, ut maybe there is a simpler explanation..."(Johnboy) You claim to be from Australia, so I took the liberty of Googling what other Australians think about Goldstone. And what a surprise, my faith that there are many decent people out there was vindicated. This is what I came up with: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/uns-bias-binds-gaza/story-e6frg6ux-1225781825529 A story from one of Australia's national newspapers (as I understand) which clearly talks about a UN conspiracy. The article's title is: "UN's BIAS BINDS GAZA" Here is one quote from a very well written article: "This kind of report, with all its biases, is one of the reasons why the US did not subject its military to the International Criminal Court. The Goldstone report was the product of the Gaza fact-finding mission, which could never have been a judicial mission, given the inclusion of publicly biased members."(The Australian Newspaper) So you see JB old boy? I am NOT the only one talking of UN bias, many of your own countrymen disagree with you.
M: "Was your speeding judge the big boss Goldstone himself? Is he the judge you were talking about?" No, he is the cop who booked the speeder, Meo. M: "You know,The judge 1)who has authority to "make an example" of you;" No, certainly in my country Judges don't go around booking people. They do in your's, do they? M: "2) And who can decide **not** to "make an example" of anyone else; he has that authority?" No, in my country that is a call made by the PROSECUTOR. It's different in your country, is it? In your country the judge not only rides the highway patrol, they also run the Prosecutor's Office, as well as being tasked with overseeing the trial? Does he also act as defense counsel?
"2. In 2005 there was NO blockade of Gaza. In fact Israel withdrew from Gaza unilaterally. But all they got in return were more rockets unto the heads of 1 million Southern Israeli civilians. What was Hamas`s excuse then? If they really wanted peace with Israel, that was their perfect opportunity to advance peace instead of violence. " If I recall correctly, Hamas' excuse at the time was their intent to free the "other occupied territories" as well. They resorted to violence in response to a good-faith gesture. This destroyed one of the most perfect opportunities to advance the peace process in a rapid and constructive manner.
"According to ex Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy, way back in 1997 King Hussein of Jordan conveyed to Israel an offer from Khaled Meshal, the chief Hamas leader, to reach an understanding on a ceasefire to last 30 years"(Syracuse) All of 30 years huh? Have you asked yourself why exactly 30 years and NOT a permanent peace deal? I'll tell you why: Because they cannot defeat Israel NOW. But they hope that in 30 years time they will gather their strength then they will finish the job. But wait, that's NOT all Syracuse. When Hamas supposedly made that offer (how could they keep a straight face), they also demanded that Israel should allow millions of Palestinian Arabs to "return" and live in Israel proper (the "right of return). That alone is a formula for Israel's destruction (demographically) ... Shall I go on? Not for now ... "Israel has 9000. Hamas has offered to exchange Shalit for approx a thousand prisoners, many of them being women and children"(Syracuse) All terrorists who were caught while they were conspiring to or committing terror acts against Israeli civilians. Yet oddly enough Hamas insists that the ones with actual Israeli blood on their hands should be released first. Moreover, I said quid pro quo but as usual, Hamas and their naive (some of them) and/or hateful (the rest) western supporters insist that Israel has to give more. How so? I'll demonstrate: BOTH have to agree to keep the cease fire (Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the rest of the assorted terrorists too... and they would have to keep their word, unlike in the past when they broke the cease fire every time they felt like it. ...) Israel: Should lift the blockade ... In return, Hamas: Should release Gilad Shalit But you also expect Israel to release 1000 terrorists with blood on their hand? No Syracuse, I am afraid that is just not a fair deal for Israel. Last but not least, Syracuse, your claim that Israel insists on the violence is the biggest canard of the biggest canard of ALL... Why? 1. Because Israel has no incentive to have a perpetual war. 2. In 2005 there was NO blockade of Gaza. In fact Israel withdrew from Gaza unilaterally. But all they got in return were more rockets unto the heads of 1 million Southern Israeli civilians. What was Hamas's excuse then? If they really wanted peace with Israel, that was their perfect opportunity to advance peace instead of violence. Explain that Syracuse ...
"Lots of the usual canards"(Syracuse) You are NOT too bad on canards either Syracuse. Let me demonstrate: "The UN adopting a hostile position vis a vis Hamas is moot..."(Syracuse) Yes it is moot, if you don't believe that the UN's role is to enforce or at least encourage ALL parties to keep the law NOT just the ones who haven't got an automatic Arab/Muslim voting bloc and the power of oil behind them. I and people like me don't however believe that it is moot to neglect their job because such neglect leads to lawlessness ... "Today no one is in any doubt that Fatah under Abbas is a different proposition to the early PLO"(Syracuse) NOT much different! Their hope is still Israel's destruction, they just use different tactics than Hamas. Why do I say that? Here are just two reasons: 1. They still insist on their so called right of return ... 2. They insist that Israel has to return to the old vulnerable 1967 boundaries. "As for the famous charter. Meshal himself has made quite clear that the Charter is not a holy book and there are no reasons why some of its contents can not be altered if peace is to ensue"(Syracuse) Now THIS ONE is a real canard, Syracuse ... They want to be taken seriously? Why don't they just change the charter. How do you expect Israel to negotiate with a party that reiterates (at every opportunity) that their final aim is to destroy Israel. What is Israel to negotiate about? The time place and method of it's own destruction? And that's NOT all Syracuse. Hamas won't even negotiate with Israel face to face because they don't recognize "Them evil Zionists ...". Doesn't that tell you something? If that does NOT then your own sentence should if only you would put your own brain into gear instead of listening to obscure, politicized doctronaire academics (By the way, if you want, I can quote academics who support my position but you would reject their claims as I reject your sources so just use our own logic instead).
"No, really, I am curious: in the struggle between those who want to kill off the Goldstone report and those who want to take it as far as they can, just who, exactly, do you think is winning?"(Johnboy) My answer is: NO ONE!!! No one because this kind of bias will NOT lead to peace. It will encourage Hamas (and their ilk) to continue their indiscriminate crimes against civilians because they got away with it for at least a decade. And for the sake of political expediency (to make the Goldstone Report look a bit better) they only got a symbolic wrap on the knuckle at the end. No one because it will discourage Israel from making future concessions (like the unilateral Gaza withdrawal) because all they get for doing so is the escalation of rocket attacks by Hamas and condemnations from so called progressives and peaceniks who bay for more concessions from Israel and condemn Israel's justified action to defend their citizens. But you know what JB old boy? If I were you, I would NOT congratulate myself prematurely. There are many people out there (I would say the silent majority) who disagree with YOU and YOUR ilk. We name you "affectionately" (NOT): "The chattering class". If you call making a lot of noise "Victory" then maybe you are winning ... but trust me, JB old boy, noise is NOT everything. There are influential forces out there who disagree with you and say so openly. For instance: "The US House of Representatives has rejected as "irredeemably biased" the findings of a UN-sponsored report which says Israel committed war crimes during its military assault on the Gaza Strip. The house on Tuesday voted 344 to 36 in favour of a non-binding resolution calling on Barack Obama, the US president, to maintain his opposition to the report"(An Al Jazeera report)
and you agreed by leaving the judge and the world of speeding behind returning to reality to find some condemnations of Hamas. So you are back in real world now or was it just a forced oops to save your analogy of being dented as you say? Well Johnboy,you did it yourself by calling Goldstone for help. Or....sheeesh!Was your speeding judge the big boss Goldstone himself? Is he the judge you were talking about? You know,The judge 1)who has authority to "make an example" of you; 2) And who can decide **not** to "make an example" of anyone else; he has that authority? JB: "I still insist that nobody has dented my analogy."....
and you admit it by leaving the judge and the world of speeding behind,returning to constable Goldstone to find some condemnations of others.(Hamas). So you are back in the real world now or was it just an intrusion to save your analogy of being dented as you say? ("I put up an analogy. I have staunchly defended that analogy. I still insist that nobody has dented it.") Well Johnboy,you did it yourself by calling Goldstone for help. Or....sheeesh! Was your speding judge Goldstone himself? Is he the judge you were talking about? 1)You know,The judge who has authority to "make an example" of you; 2) And who can decide **not** to "make an example" of anyone else; he has that authority? "I still insist that nobody has dented my analogy.".... Of course Johnboy don't worry.What's in the house stays in the house.You are amongst friends here,right Tim?SDHD?Judge? ;-) did he say banana republic?
SDHD: "That`s the thing, johnboy. Israel isn`t "trailing its coat" any more than Russia, China, lraq, Iran, Chad, Syria, Jordan, the U.S., Britain, Columbia, Cuba, Sudan, etc." Except, of course, the vast majority of countries in the world think that it is. Haven't you noticed that even its own allies are starting to lose patience with Israel's arrogance and exceptionalism? SDHD: "Yet, it`s being discriminated against." No, obviously you have noticed the trend at all.... Look, SDHD, you are blind to a simple fact: Israel **IS** more brazen in its claim to have a **RIGHT** to beat the crap out of civilians. What YOU claim to be "discrimination" is simply a display of YOUR blindness i.e. because YOU refuse to see Israel's brazenness then YOU can't understand why the UNGA is determined to take it down a peg or two, and so YOU have to come up with Some Other Explanation. Your explanation is "discrimination", when the real explanation is "it's been asking for it".
"No, really, I am curious: in the struggle between those who want to kill off the Goldstone report and those who want to take it as far as they can, just who, exactly, do you think is winning?"(Johnboy) My answer is: NO ONE!!! No one because this kind of bias will NOT lead to peace. It will encourage Hamas (and their ilk) to continue their indiscriminate crimes against civilians because they got away with it for at least a decade. And for the sake of political expediency (to make the Goldstone Report look a bit better) they only got a symbolic wrap on the knuckle at the end. No one because it will discourage Israel from making future concessions (like the unilateral Gaza withdrawal) because all they get for doing so is the escalation of rocket attacks by Hamas and condemnations from so called progressives and peaceniks who bay for more concessions from Israel and condemn Israel's justified action to defend their citizens. But you know what JB old boy? If I were you, I would NOT congratulate myself prematurely. There are many people out there (I would say the silent majority) who disagree with YOU and YOUR ilk. We name you "affectionately" (NOT): "The chattering class". If you call making a lot of noise "Victory" then maybe you are winning ... but trust me, JB old boy, noise is NOT everything. There are influential forces out there who disagree with you and say so openly. For instance: "The US House of Representatives has rejected as "irredeemably biased" the findings of a UN-sponsored report which says Israel committed war crimes during its military assault on the Gaza Strip. The house on Tuesday voted 344 to 36 in favour of a non-binding resolution calling on Barack Obama, the US president, to maintain his opposition to the report"(An Al Jazeera report)
SDHD: "Meanwhile, it doesn`t, since Israel isn`t "flaunting" any more than Syria did in Hama, Russia in Grozny, or Jordan in Black September." Err, SDHD, Israel is VASTLY more vocal about its **RIGHT** to drop its oversized army boot on top of a civilian popln. However violent the Syrians, the Russians, or the Jordanians may be, they do not even begin to match the arrogant, self-rightous claim to exceptionalism that Israel always displays when it is beating the living snot outta somebody. I'm sure that offends you but, so sorry, it is the truth.
SDHD: "When you ATTEMPTED to address the overt discrimination, your analogy became worse, because you attempted to portray Israel as the most flagrant violator." *sigh* The word I used was "brazen", not "flagrant". I don't take kindly to being verballed, SDHD.
"I`m sure Tim R can come up with a world-wide conspiracy to explain why, but maybe there is a simpler explanation..."(Johnboy) You claim to be from Australia, so I took the liberty of Googling what other Australians think about Goldstone. And what a surprise (NOT) my faith that there are many decent people out there was vindicated. This is what I came up with: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/uns-bias-binds-gaza/story-e6frg6ux-1225781825529 A story from one of Australia's national newspapers (as I understand) which clearly talks about a UN conspiracy. The article's title is: "UN's BIAS BINDS GAZA" Here is one quote from a very well written article: "This kind of report, with all its biases, is one of the reasons why the US did not subject its military to the International Criminal Court. "(The Australian Newspaper) So you see JB old boy? I am NOT the only one talking of UN bias, many of your own countrymen disagree with you.
I forgot to put this part up there. Hope this surfaces so that no mistakes were in my post. Hey I have sent a couple of more to Jb's insistence of you and Tim R but not out. So long as this one does I care not.
Is like the POT[you]Calling the kettle black. Although I would not ascribe the "kettle" To Tim R. I watched here... you waiting anxiously execting expecting the interlocuters arrival/return?(one SDHD)was away responding elsewhere... And so you waited,and waited in loneliness(sorry for you) it was pathetic. You were expecting a reply from the judge I noticed.He however did not oblige. Well,now SDHD is back with a vengeance.So is Tim R.heyho,for you to spill the empty sachel of BEANS. Funny fellow is our Johnboy...
"Sorry but I am not playing lets change the argument" ..." a few weeks ago" You know, I can come back here in a few weeks and obsess about you misspelling "let's," and call you a fool, but I'm not as petty as you. I know what you meant. A shame, that even after all my explanations, you don't understand what I mean.
"Sorry but I am not playing lets change the argument, merely pointing out that you made an idiotic claim a few weeks ago and that you need to accept it" I'm simply pointing out the British court arrested Pinochet on a Spanish warrant over the murder of Spanish citizens with no opposition from the government. He wasn't even tried, he was released. Livni had a warrant issued at the behest of special interest groups, which embarrassed the British government. Spanish warrant, arrested in Britain... National or international, dippy?
"Of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days." You mean, there were no attempted terror attacks (on average of 12 a day)? The occasional missiles weren't interruptions? Smuggling of arms weren't interruptions? Digging a tunnel into Israel wasn't an interruption?
"That is a just reason for abandoning Shalit?" Releasing prisoners with blood on their hands, into a position where they can attack you again IS. What's the just reason for kidnapping and ransoming a soldier? "Your general argument of a reluctant Israel being forced to deal with the fanatical unyielding Hamas in progressively more brutal fashion is more self reinforcing than it is based on real events." There were 8 years of rocket fire as a "real event." How much rocket fire is there now? "Beginning in February 2005, Hamas unilaterally declared a ceasefire, while Israel then temporarily suspended its assassinations in Gaza it continued to target Islamic Jihad activists inside the West Bank." Who were firing rockets into Israel. "It was Israel rather than Hamas or even Islamic Jihad that violated the de facto truce" Except, rockets were still falling on Israel.
"Lots of the usual canards." And they're YOURS. "The UN adopting a hostile position vis a vis Hamas is moot. You probably would have argued that it do the same with the PLO in the eighties." You approve of things like the Munich Olympics massacre? Entering Jewish homes and murdering the inhabitants? Taking elementary school children hostage and murdering them? "As for the famous charter. Meshal himself has made quite clear that the Charter is not a holy book and there are no reasons why some of its contents can not be altered if peace is to ensue." And there is no reason why Israel wouldn't pursue peace if they amend their charter. You do understand the international community has placed 3 very reasonable demands upon Hamas, NONE of which it accepts. "Dictates? Hamas have one prisoner. Israel has 9000." Israel has taken violent prisoners. Hamas took a HOSTAGE. That is, they put a ransom on his head (blatantly against Geneva Conventions) and refuse Red Cross visits to him.
"You don`t understand the differences between an International Court and the British House of Lords." Spanish arrest warrant for the murder of Spanish citizens, dipstick. See the difference between that and Livni's case, pressed by special interest groups? Are Spain and Britain 2 different nations? Don't see the difference, numbskull?
Lots of the usual canards. The UN adopting a hostile position vis a vis Hamas is moot. You probably would have argued that it do the same with the PLO in the eighties. Israel certainly wanted it to. Today no one is in any doubt that Fatah under Abbas is a different proposition to the early PLO. As for the famous charter. Meshal himself has made quite clear that the Charter is not a holy book and there are no reasons why some of its contents can not be altered if peace is to ensue. Altering it unilaterally simply reflects surrender, with no reciprocal measures from Israel likely to result. Dictates? Hamas have one prisoner. Israel has 9000. Hamas has offered to exchange Shalit for approx a thousand prisoners, many of them being women and children, many held without charge. It is not a diktat to ask for an open economy in return for a cessation of fire. A prisoner exchange is also not a diktat. According to Shalit Snr it is the US as much as Israel who opposes such an exchange lest it weaken Abbas. That is a just reason for abandoning Shalit? Cast Lead and the siege is no more about Shalit than Lebanon 2006 was about returning IDF held captive and to claim it was is disingenuous. Hence the siege predates Shalit and actually relates to the choice of the Gazans in electing Hamas. Your general argument of a reluctant Israel being forced to deal with the fanatical unyielding Hamas in progressively more brutal fashion is more self reinforcing than it is based on real events. According to ex Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy, way back in 1997 King Hussein of Jordan conveyed to Israel an offer from Khaled Meshal, the chief Hamas leader, to reach an understanding on a ceasefire to last 30 years. Israel not only ignored the offer, but a few days later, Israeli operatives tried to assassinate Meshal in Jordan. According to Matti Steinberg, former head advisor on Palestinian affairs to the Shin Bet, Hamas refrained from attacking civilians inside Israel until the Israeli fanatic Baruch Goldsteins February 2004 murder of twenty nine Palestinians in a Hebron mosque. When Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin refused to withdraw the settlers from Hebron in the aftermath of the massacre, Hamas only then retaliated with suicide bombings of its own. Sporadic terrorist attacks on Israel in the ensuing years typically followed Israeli undercover operations that killed Hamas or other militants, and often civilian bystanders as well. Beginning in February 2005, Hamas unilaterally declared a ceasefire, while Israel then temporarily suspended its assassinations in Gaza it continued to target Islamic Jihad activists inside the West Bank. That led the Gazan wing of Islamic Jihad to declare it would not abandon its people in the West Bank and would retaliate, which it did with several rocket attacks inside Israel. Israel then responded by resuming its assassinations in Gaza. It was Israel rather than Hamas or even Islamic Jihad that violated the de facto truce that followed in the first months after the Israeli withdrawal of its Gaza settlements in August-September 2005, for Israel continued its extensive assassination operations in the West Bank. On the general trend of Israel provoking Hamas retaliating and Israel escalating during this whole decade, Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer, & Anat Biletzki[all heavyweight academics, MIT etc] carried out a recent study which showed that "Of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days."
You don`t understand the differences between an International Court and the British House of Lords. Imbecile. worse than that you even tried to deny you ever said it, only admitting it when I provided the url with your own quote for you on #343. Sorry but I am not playing lets change the argument, merely pointing out that you made an idiotic claim a few weeks ago and that you need to accept it, rather than pretend you never said it. Pinochet's case in the UK WAS NOT decided by an -International court- as you originally claimed. (see #343 for original source of your claim)
"I don`t care who it is, SDHD, but if you trail your coat before the coppers like that then you really *are* going to be made an example of." That's the thing, johnboy. Israel isn't "trailing its coat" any more than Russia, China, lraq, Iran, Chad, Syria, Jordan, the U.S., Britain, Columbia, Cuba, Sudan, etc. Yet, it's being discriminated against. How many have died in China's takeover of Tibet? How many died in Hama? How many died in Black September? How many have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many died in Grozny? Sudan? Iran and Iraq during their wars? Czechoslovakia? Where are the "Goldstone reports?" Not more brazen than Israel? Are you kidding? Which brings us back to your initial analogy... "Why me and not them? Not being a valid argument." It's the discrimination we're talking about, halfwit.
Now is not only been vanquished but it is now totally put on the back burner and thus the flames have sucked its life for ever. Note:The_-Goldstone_Re-Port_ has_been_ D_E_B_U-_N_K_E_D- Accept it or perish at the consequences you are continuing like a DOG with a BONE.
"I don`t care who it is, SDHD, but if you trail your coat before the coppers like that then you really *are* going to be made an example of." That's the thing, johnboy. Israel isn't "trailing its coat" any more than Russia, China, lraq, Iran, Chad, Syria, Jordan, the U.S., Britain, Columbia, Cuba, Sudan, etc. Yet, it's being discriminated against. How many have died in China's takeover of Tibet? How many died in Hama? How many died in Black September? How many have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many died in Grozny? Sudan? Iran and Iraq during their wars? Czechoslovakia? Where are the "Goldstone reports?" Not more brazen than Israel? Are you kidding? Which brings us back to your initial analogy... "Why me and not them? Not being a valid argument." It's the discimination we're talking about, halfwit.
"I said merely that he is more brazen about FLAUNTING his speeding, and FLAUNTING the fact that not only isn`t he being booked but also that he *can`t* be booked." I know. You had to add that to your argument to try to save your sucky analogy. Meanwhile, it doesn't, since Israel isn't "flaunting" any more than Syria did in Hama, Russia in Grozny, or Jordan in Black September. Of course, there's China in Tibet and any other examples of "flaunting" much worse than Israel's you silly oaf. Meanwhile, Israel faces more discrimination from the UN than any other country, silly loon. " I don`t care who it is, SDHD, but if you trail your coat before the coppers like that then you really *are* going to be made an example of." So, the emphasis of your analogy morphs from the "excuse" not being valid to "flaunting." You're so desperate to save your analogy, you make a greater fool of yourself with every post. "Define "worse", SDHD." Your analogy as you try to flesh it out, dunce.
"I said merely that he is more brazen about FLAUNTING his speeding, and FLAUNTING the fact that not only isn`t he being booked but also that he *can`t* be booked." I know. You had to add that to your argument to try to save your sucky analogy. Meanwhile, it doesn't, since Israel isn't "flaunting" any more than Syria did in Hama, Russia in Grozny, or Jordan in Black September. Of course, there's China in Tibet and any other examples of "flaunting" much worse than Israel's you silly oaf. Meanwhile, Israel faces more discrimination from the UN than any other country, silly loon. " I don`t care who it is, SDHD, but if you trail your coat before the coppers like that then you really *are* going to be made an example of." So, the emphasis of your analogy morphs from the "excuse" not being valid to "flaunting." You're so desperate to save your analogy, you make a greater fool of yourself with every post. "Define "worse", SDHD." Your analogy as you try to flesh it out, dunce.
"Funny, ain`t it, but that the Goldstone report just refuses to be vanguished?" It's still young. How long do you think it will take before it goes on the back burner?
Israel being discriminated against by the UN is not wiped away by your analogy of the "speeder" using the excuse, "but why me when all these other people are speeding too?" "Do you have the faintest idea what an "analogy" is, SDHD?" Most definitely, and yours SUCKS. "ANALOGIES allow you to discuss those general principles freed from the partisan claptrap that otherwise invades the argument." And yours SUCKS. It doesn't address the overt discrimination. When you ATTEMPTED to address the overt discrimination, your analogy became worse, because you attempted to portray Israel as the most flagrant violator. That's why I threw Hama, Grozny, and Black September back in your ignorant face. "I was illustrating a point of law" And I was explaining that your explanation, SUCKS.
You don't understand the differences between Livni and Pinochet, given that Pinochet was arrested in England under a Spanish warrant (for allegedly murdering Spaniards)?
TJ: "To quote Sudan as your example shows your inability to prove cogent points" That's meant to be a "rebuttal", is it? I see what YOU claim is a sandwich, but where's the meat? TJ: " Plus accusing me, and my profession on your premise I practice in a banana republic,sick puppy?quaint-very." Channelling Yoda does not an argument make. RJ: "You boy are not only foolish but also incapable to write with distinction." Again, a tofu-sandwich. Without the tofu, of course.... TJ: "When one loses one`s nerve reverting to puerile response is just weakness personified. And you are proof of it." Why bother to post when you don't even attempt to make a point? Doing that is the dictionary-definition of "pointless".
Your posts are specious/ sophistic . To quote Sudan as your example shows your inability to prove cogent points. Plus accusing me, and my profession on your premise I practice in a banana republic,sick puppy?quaint-very. You boy are not only foolish but also incapable to write with distinction. When one loses one's nerve reverting to puerile response is just weakness personified. And you are proof of it.
So,W.T.F we cannot all be the same,we are a bit different in some respects. Life would be dull if the reverse were true. No one cannot serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.(you know the source)but a Christian NOT I. But a thorough Jew/Zionist My meaning is your partiality to the Arab Palestinians versus [your/our ] Israel. I know that not all Arabs are bad. They too must be anxious for an end to the conflict. Not so Hamas?s Haniyeh you must agree. Do we not say:Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims. I forgot to ask you if you speak Arabic.But I take it for granted that after all the years living in Israel,serving in the IDF?conclusion is (you do) Right? Remember W.T.F we have not had a day's peace since 1945/48.But you forget this in your equation. Perhaps a bit more soul searching should be applicable by you... Till next time? p/s I don?t think you are a tsabar.I guess you live in the diaspora/galut?
SDHD: "Out of desperation, johnboy`s speeder starts as someone who`s speeding the same way as others" Yep. SDHD: "Now, johnboy`s speeder is more brazen than the others." Yep. Notice, of course, that at no time did I say that he is GOING ANY FASTER than anyone else. I said merely that he is more brazen about FLAUNTING his speeding, and FLAUNTING the fact that not only isn't he being booked but also that he *can't* be booked. I don't care who it is, SDHD, but if you trail your coat before the coppers like that then you really *are* going to be made an example of. SDHD: "Worse than Grozny? Worse than Hama? Worse than Iraq? Afghanistan? Black September?" Define "worse", SDHD. Because I am suggesting here and now that once you do then your argument will fail.
TR: "Our Johnboy Is Just Playing Games. He is just being perverse. No one can be as dumb as he makes himself appear to be" Tim R faces a problem which (if he ever thinks about it) must be very puzzling to him... After all, he is convinced that people who hold opinions like mine (i.e. who support Goldstone) are just a perverse bunch o' dumb-bums who don't really believe their claptrap. Conversly, people who think like him (i.e. the Goldstone-deniers) have truth, justice, and the zionist way on their side. How can that be a fair fight! The forces of Tim-ness must - easily! - vanguish the Goldstoners, just as Tim himself proclaims (repeatedly, if you haven't noticed) he has done in this talkback. Funny, ain't it, but that the Goldstone report just refuses to be vanguished? I'm sure Tim R can come up with a world-wide conspiracy to explain why, but maybe there is a simpler explanation. You know... maybe Tim is wrong....
"Since when was the UN an international peace keeping force in Gaza? Since when did Israel even want an international peace keeping force in Gaza?"(Syracuse) Since never. But they could have done to Hamas what they were/are doing to Israel. It might or might NOT have worked but at least it would have been worth a try, for two reasons: 1. It would have salvaged the UN's dwindling reputation. 2. It might have averted operation Cast Led if they would have been able to exert enough pressure on Hamas to STOP their war crimes. "Only that was the reality between the June ceasefire and Nov 4th"(Syracuse) But NOT after because Hamas rejected the cease fire. "Might that be that they were fed up with seeing their children malnourished and their sewerage flowing through the streets ..."(Syracuse) I am sure it might but they had a way to solve that too, peacefully. Like I said, all they had to do is to meet Israel's conditions too. Release Gilad Shalit. Why was that so hard? Quid pro quo: ... compromise for compromise. Each side gives and each side takes ... NOT dictates by Hamas whereby Israel gives and Hamas continues it's criminal behaviour towards Israelis .... "All they wanted was a lifting of the siege in return for a cessation of firing"(Syracuse) And all Israel wanted was the return of the Israeli hostage (Gilad Shalit) that Hamas held incommunicado for years, in return for lifting the siege. See Syracuse? Quid pro quo ... it's not so hard. "It is less than serious to quoite the defiant statement of a hamas "(Syracuse) Really? Then perhaps you might couple that statement to other similar statements made by every Hamas leader for years. You might also couple it to the Hamas charter which openly calls for Israel's destruction. "It was and is plain that Israel is scared of peace with Hamas"(Syracuse) Even if that statement would be true, which it isn't, it is irrelevant. Irrelevant because Hamas has been openly boasting for years that THEIR war against Israel would only stop once Israel would be destroyed. So, you see, Syracuse? Israel has no other choice than to give as good as it gets from Hamas.
Do you have the faintest idea what an "analogy" is, SDHD? Let me spell it out s.l.o.w.l.y: Argument on partisan issues often get stuck because some people find it impossible to separate out the "general principles" that are at play from the emotional baggage that they insist on bringing to the argument. ANALOGIES allow you to discuss those general principles freed from the partisan claptrap that otherwise invades the argument. Get it? The clue is the title of my first post in this particular thread: "#260 Explaining the law to Tim R" Get it? I was illustrating a point of law i.e. I was DELIBERATELY trying not to talk about Israel because if I do then people like you and Tim R simply "see red" rather than "see reason", and that gets too tedious much too quickly. SDHD: "is discrimination against Israel, right? "You do understand the forum you are on, and that the issue you addressed You are as dumb as an ox, you know that?
"Since when was the UN an international peace keeping force in Gaza? Since when did Israel even want an international peace keeping force in Gaza?"(Syracuse) Since never. But they could have done to Hamas what they were/are doing to Israel. It might or might NOT have worked but at least it would have been worth a try, for two reasons: 1. It would have salvaged the UN's dwindling reputation. 2. It might have averted operation Cast Led if they would have been able to exert enough pressure on Hamas to STOP their war crimes. "Only that was the reality between the June ceasefire and Nov 4th"(Syracuse) But NOT after because Hamas rejected the cease fire. "Might that be that they were fed up with seeing their children malnourished and their sewerage flowing through the streets ..."(Syracuse) I am sure it might but they had a way to solve that too, peacefully. Like I said, all they had to do is to meet Israel's conditions too. Release Gilad Shalit. Why was that so hard? Quid pro quo: ... compromise for compromise. Each side gives and each side takes ... NOT dictates by Hamas whereby Israel gives and Hamas continues it's criminal behaviour towards Israelis .... "All they wanted was a lifting of the siege in return for a cessation of firing"(Syracuse) And all Israel wanted was the return of the Israeli hostage (Gilad Shalit) that Hamas held incommunicado for years, in return for lifting the siege. See Syracuse? Quid pro quo ... it's not so hard. "It is less than serious to quoite the defiant statement of a hamas "(Syracuse) Really? Then perhaps you might couple that statement to other similar statements made by every Hamas leader for years. You might also couple it to the Hamas charter which openly calls for Israel's destruction. "It was and is plain that Israel is scared of peace with Hamas"(Syracuse) Even if that statement would be true, which it isn't, it is irrelevant. Irrelevant because Hamas has been openly boasting for years that THEIR war against Israel would only stop once Israel would be destroyed. So, you see, Syracuse? Israel has no other choice than to give as good as it gets from Hamas.
"Since when was the UN an international peace keeping force in Gaza? Since when did Israel even want an international peace keeping force in Gaza?"(Syracuse) Since never. But they could have done to Hamas what they were/are doing to Israel. It might or might NOT have worked but at least it would have been worth a try, for two reasons: 1. It would have salvaged the UN's dwindling reputation. 2. It might have averted operation Cast Led if they would have been able to exert enough pressure on Hamas to STOP their war crimes. "Only that was the reality between the June ceasefire and Nov 4th"(Syracuse) But NOT after because Hamas rejected the cease fire. "Might that be that they were fed up with seeing their children malnourished and their sewerage flowing through the streets ..."(Syracuse) I am sure it might but they had a way to solve that too, peacefully. Like I said, all they had to do is to meet Israel's conditions too. Release Gilad Shalit. Why was that so hard? Quid pro quo: ... compromise for compromise. Each side gives and each side takes ... NOT dictates by Hamas whereby Israel gives and Hamas continues it's criminal behaviour towards Israelis .... "All they wanted was a lifting of the siege in return for a cessation of firing"(Syracuse) And all Israel wanted was the return of the Israeli hostage (Gilad Shalit) that Hamas held incommunicado for years, in return for lifting the siege. See Syracuse? Quid pro quo ... it's not so hard. "It is less than serious to quoite the defiant statement of a hamas "(Syracuse) Really? Then perhaps you might couple that statement to other similar statements made by every Hamas leader for years. You might also couple it to the Hamas charter which openly calls for Israel's destruction. "It was and is plain that Israel is scared of peace with Hamas"(Syracuse) Even if that statement would be true, which it isn't, it is irrelevant. Irrelevant because Hamas has been openly boasting for years that THEIR war against Israel would only stop once Israel would be destroyed. So, you see, Syracuse? Israel has no other choice than to give as good as it gets from Hamas.
basically he's full of it.
Your posts are:specious/sophistic To quote Sudan as your example shows your inability to prove cogent points plus accusing me,and my profession on your premise I practice in a banana republic quaint? You boy are not only foolish but also incapable to write with distinction. When one loses one's nerve reverting to puerile response is just weakness personified. And you are proof of it sick puppy.
"These are YOUR words with the original post and url reference crackhead." Meanwhile, they still don't match your allegations in your post on this article, dingdong. You do understand the varying differences between Pinochet's case and Livni's, don't you dipstick? The most glaring one being that it wasn't a bunch of interest groups petitioning for Pinochet's arrest, rather it acted on a Spanish government warrant (i.e. international). Also, there was no trial, he was released from custody. Now, you may repeat your idiocy again for all to see, gibbering oaf.
So,W.T.F we cannot all be the same,we are a bit different in some respects. Life would be dull if the reverse were true. No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.(you know the source)but am not a Christian but a thorough Jew/Zionist My meaning is your partiality to the Arab Palestinians versus [your/our ] Israel. I know that not all Arabs are bad. They too must be anxious for an end to the conflict. Not so Hamas?s Haniyeh you must agree. Do we not say:Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims. I forgot to ask you if you speak Arabic.But I take for granted that after all the years living in Israel,serving in the IDF?conclusion is (you do) Right? Remember W.T.F we have not had a day's peace since 1945/48.But you forget this in your equation. Perhaps a bit more soul searching should be applicable by you... Till next time?
But specious. To quote Sudan as your example shows your inability to prove cogent points plus accusing me,and my profession on your premise I practice in a banana republic. You boy are not only foolish but also incapable to write with distinction. When one loses one's nerve reverting to puerile response is just weakness personified. And you are proof of it.
So,W.T.F we cannot all be the same,we are a bit different in some respects. Life would be dull if the reverse were true. No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.(you know the source)but am not a Christian but a thorough Jew/Zionist My meaning is your partiality to the Arab Palestinians versus [your/our ] Israel. I know that not all Arabs are bad. They too must be anxious for an end to the conflict. Not so Hamas?s Haniyeh you must agree. Do we not say:Not all Muslims are terrorists,but all terrorists are Muslims. I forgot to ask you if you speak Arabic.But I take for granted that after all the years living in Israel,serving in the IDF?conclusion is (you do) Right? Remember W.T.F Remember we have not had a day's peace since 1945/48.But you forget this in your equation. Perhaps a bit more soul searching should be applicable by you... Bye for now
SDHD: "It`s profiling because the "violator" is no more brazen than anyone else, but he receives a disproportionately higher number of citations than anyone else, dopey." Err, you say that as if it is a self-evident truth, when it most certainly is not. You also say that as if YOU are the arbiter of that truth, which is odd indeed, since you are also (obviously) the ADVOCATE for that violator. It amounts to the criminal gangs having the right to get together and decide amongst themselves who deserves being arrested, and who does not.....
TR: "#SDHD Our Johnboy Is Just Playing Games ... He is just being perverse. No one can be as dumb as he makes himself appear to be ... Not even him." No, really, I am curious: in the struggle between those who want to kill off the Goldstone report and those who want to take it as far as they can, just who, exactly, do you think is winning? I ask because the people who support the Goldstone report agree with my arguments - not yours - and so according to you they must a bunch of preverse, dumb, game-playing jerks i.e. no match for the might of hasbarah. So why haven't those Hasbarah Hacks managed to prevail?
SDHD: "That`s the point, you raving loon, Israel isn`t any more brazen than anyone else (i.e. Grozny, Hama, Black September)" SDHD, you are a zionist. You therefore insist that Israel is not being brazen in its violation of int'l humanitarian law. You, SDHD, are wrong: your wonder-country is a serial violator of int'l humanitarian law, and invents NEW ways to violating them e.g. laying seige to an occupied people when it is the occupying power tasked by int'l humantiarian law with protecting those people. You say that is untrue. Goldstone says it is true. So sorry, SDHD, but if it comes down to the credibility of those two Jews I'll take Goldstone over you any day of the week.
SDHD: "You do understand the forum you are on, and that the issue you addressed is discrimination against Israel, right?" *sigh* Here is a contentious issue being hottly argued by partisan commentators. It is, naturally, hard to separate the *facts* from the *partisanship*. So what can you do to separate those facts from the partisan comments? You use "analogies", because those "analogies" illustrate important facts WITHOUT the baggage that comes with the partisanship. "Q: So, not about Israel? "A: Nope." THAT IS WHY I USED AN ANALOGY i.e. it separated out the facts I was trying to illustrate **from** the partisan commentary. THAT IS WHY TIM R KEEPS INSISTING ON TALKING ABOUT ISRAEL i.e. he wants to put the partisan commentary back in, because that is where he is comfortable. *sheesh*
"Since when was the UN an international peace keeping force in Gaza? Since when did Israel even want an international peace keeping force in Gaza?"(Syracuse) Since never. But they could have done to Hamas what they were/are doing to Israel. It might or might NOT have worked but at least it would have been worth a try, for two reasons: 1. It would have salvaged the UN's dwindling reputation. 2. It might have averted operation Cast Led if they would have been able to exert enough pressure on Hamas to STOP their war crimes. "Only that was the reality between the June ceasefire and Nov 4th"(Syracuse) But NOT after because Hamas rejected the cease fire. "Might that be that they were fed up with seeing their children malnourished and their sewerage flowing through the streets ..."(Syracuse) I am sure it might but they had a way to solve that too, peacefully. Like I said, all they had to do is to meet Israel's conditions too. Release Gilad Shalit. Why was that so hard? Quid pro quo: ... compromise for compromise. Each side gives and each side takes ... NOT dictates by Hamas whereby Israel gives and Hamas continues it's criminal behaviour towards Israelis .... "All they wanted was a lifting of the siege in return for a cessation of firing"(Syracuse) And all Israel wanted was the return of the Israeli hostage (Gilad Shalit) that Hamas held incommunicado for years, in return for lifting the siege. See Syracuse? Quid pro quo ... it's not so hard. "It is less than serious to quoite the defiant statement of a hamas "(Syracuse) Really? Then perhaps you might couple that statement to other similar statements made by every Hamas leader for years. You might also couple it to the Hamas charter which openly calls for Israel's destruction. "It was and is plain that Israel is scared of peace with Hamas"(Syracuse) Even if that statement would be true, which it isn't, it is irrelevant. Irrelevant because Hamas has been openly boasting for years that THEIR war against Israel would only stop once Israel would be destroyed. So, you see, Syracuse? Israel has no other choice than to give as good as it gets from Hamas.
Pay more attention to what SDHD is saying without resorting to ad-hominems. I see he is resorting to it too out of frustration.I don't blame him in this instant. But then you too are doing the same and you are. Unless you have an ulterior motive to purposefully doing it shows disdain which is silly. It_is_not_ADSD_(But SDHD)surely you can spell his moniker correctly ha? Many people make typo errors,including myself. But your continuously doing it is absurd. Don't you think? .
Me: "My words don`t state what you claimed I stated, dopey" ADSD the imbecile Clown: "These are YOUR words with the original post and url reference crackhead." And what you said in your original post doesn't match what I said, moron. You do understand the varying differences between Pinochet and Livni on the British court's level, don't you? Or do you need to be spoonfed the differences between a Spanish-warrant, and interest groups pushing a local judge for a warrant? You do see how "international" fits in with Pinochet (since the warrant was Spanish), don't you, dope?
"I`m getting a kick out of how desperate he is"(SDHD) Enjoy ... Personally, I have had enough of him. He is getting disjointed and incoherent. I'll go on debating with others until poor old Johnboy recovers his wits and starts debating seriously again. In the meanwhile, I have more serious things to do than to waste my time with him. But he will keep ...
"Since when was the UN an international peace keeping force in Gaza? Since when did Israel even want an international peace keeping force in Gaza?"(Syracuse) Since never. But they could have done to Hamas what they were/are doing to Israel. It might or might NOT have worked but at least it would have been worth a try, for two reasons: 1. It would have salvaged the UN's dwindling reputation. 2. It might have averted operation Cast Led if they would have been able to exert enough pressure on Hamas to STOP their war crimes. "Only that was the reality between the June ceasefire and Nov 4th"(Syracuse) But NOT after because Hamas rejected the cease fire. "Might that be that they were fed up with seeing their children malnourished and their sewerage flowing through the streets ..."(Syracuse) I am sure it might but they had a way to solve that too, peacefully. Like I said, all they had to do is to meet Israel's conditions too. Release Gilad Shalit. Why was that so hard? Quid pro quo: ... compromise for compromise. Each side gives and each side takes ... NOT dictates by Hamas whereby Israel gives and Hamas continues it's criminal behaviour towards Israelis .... "All they wanted was a lifting of the siege in return for a cessation of firing"(Syracuse) And all Israel wanted was the return of the Israeli hostage (Gilad Shalit) that Hamas held incommunicado for years, in return for lifting the siege. See Syracuse? Quid pro quo ... it's not so hard. "It is less than serious to quoite the defiant statement of a hamas "(Syracuse) Really? Then perhaps you might couple that statement to other similar statements made by every Hamas leader for years. You might also couple it to the Hamas charter which openly calls for Israel's destruction. "It was and is plain that Israel is scared of peace with Hamas"(Syracuse) Even if that statement would be true, which it isn't, it is irrelevant. Irrelevant because Hamas has been openly boasting for years that THEIR war against Israel would only stop once Israel would be destroyed. So, you see, Syracuse? Israel has no other choice than to give as good as it gets from Hamas.
"My words don`t state what you claimed I stated, dopey" ADSD the imbecile These are YOUR words with the original post and url reference crackhead. "Pinochet was arrested in London in October 17 1988 under a Spanish warrant and released in March 2000 on medical grounds by the Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial. The COURT was *INTERNATIONAL*, not a British kangaroo court, then released. He [Pinochet]was subsequently arrested in Chile" ADSD #77 in the below haaretz talk back: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135497.html "The COURT was *INTERNATIONAL*" ADSD Got that thickhead. YOU SAID the COURT [which was the House of Lords] WAS INTERNATIONAL. Oaf.
"... He is just being perverse. No one can be as dumb as he makes himself appear to be ... Not even him." I think he's so desperate to make his analogy work, that he keeps morphing it to patch up the holes we poke into it. Needless to say, the latest version of his analogy has nothing to do with the issue he was addressing. We went from a guy speeding like other speeders, to some lame excuse that he's "flaunting" his speeding. I'm getting a kick out of how desperate he is.
Tim: "In the meanwhile, the UN did NOTHING to stop or even discourage Hamas." Syracuse: "Since when was the UN an international peace keeping force in Gaza? Since when did Israel even want an international peace keeping force in Gaza?" Who said the only way to achieve this was through a peace keeping force? What about UN resolutions? Actions by the Human Rights Council? They had 8 years to address the rocket fire. They didn't take serious action until after Cast Lead.
Out of desperation, johnboy's speeder starts as someone who's speeding the same way as others. His excuse, "Why did you choose me?" doesn't work. Now, johnboy's speeder is more brazen than the others. Worse than Grozny? Worse than Hama? Worse than Iraq? Afghanistan? Black September? Johnboy, your analogy sucked when you first rendered it. It sucks so much worse now. Plus, you're making a desperate fool of yourself with every post.
"A: According to SDHD-logic the very act of the police turning their attention towards this brazen violator of the law is "illegal". Q: How so? A: Because in SDHD-world that is "profiling"." It's profiling because the "violator" is no more brazen than anyone else, but he receives a disproportionately higher number of citations than anyone else, dopey. You changed your analogy, pitiful one. Before, your analogy was "everyone else is speeding" isn't an excuse. Now, it's "The man in question is speeding in a more brazen manner than anyone else." That's simply not true. You are discriminating against him, clowndancer.
"Q: So, not about Israel? A: Nope." Subject matter: "Israel needs Goldstone." Creates analogy used to refute assertion of: "Discrimination against Israel." Condition of Johnboy's brain: Dead, deceitful, desperate. Condition of Johnboy's analogy: Sucks.
"Now you talk about a Spanish Court issuing a warrant?" I mentioned that before, dopey. You do understand the part about Spanish citizens being murdered, and them having grounds to issue the warrant on an international level? " But it was a British court who decided the case." It did? I thought it released him on medical grounds. Not much of a decision, is it? " NOT an INTERNATIONAL one dimwit!" The process was international, moron. The court's involvement was international, not a local magistrate acting solo on behalf of biased parties, as was the case with Tzipi Livni. You've had a stick up your... this whole time since that exchange? Yep, moron.
"The principle I attempted to illustrate: It ain`t "profiling" if you concentrate on taking someone down BECAUSE they are brazenly violating the law." Nonsense. Your idiocy is morphing in a lame attempt to wiggle out of making a crappy analogy. It "IS" profiling based on statistics alone. Now what? Your guy ties a bunch of balloons and sparklers to his car every time he goes out, speeds and thumbs his nose at the cop? That's a new, and desperate twist, which makes both your cop and court look like you, idiots. "Because the very brazenness of your violations invariably brings you to the attention of the police." That's the point, you raving loon, Israel isn't any more brazen than anyone else (i.e. Grozny, Hama, Black September) Your analogy SUCKS! It does nothing to counter the allegations of discrimination. It just makes you look more and more like an idiot.
"The principle I attempted to illustrate: It ain`t "profiling" if you concentrate on taking someone down BECAUSE they are brazenly violating the law." Nonsense. Your idiocy is morphing in a lame attempt to wiggle out of making a crappy analogy. It "IS" profiling based on statistics alone. Now what? Your guy ties a bunch of balloons and sparklers to his car every time he goes out, speeds and thumbs his nose at the cop? That's a new, and desperate twist, which makes both your cop and court look like you, idiots. "Because the very brazenness of your violations invariably brings you to the attention of the police." That's the point, you raving loon, Israel isn't any more brazen than anyone else (i.e. Grozny, Hama, Black September) Your analogy SUCKS! It does nothing to counter the allegations of discrimination. It just makes you look more and more like an idiot.
... He is just being perverse. No one can be as dumb as he makes himself appear to be ... Not even him. May G-D rest his soul.
"The principle I attempted to illustrate: It ain`t "profiling" if you concentrate on taking someone down BECAUSE they are brazenly violating the law." Nonsense. Your idiocy is morphing in a lame attempt to wiggle out of making a crappy analogy. It "IS" profiling based on statistics alone. Now what? Your guy ties a bunch of balloons and sparklers to his car every time he goes out, speeds and thumbs his nose at the cop? That's a new, and desperate twist, which makes both your cop and court look like you, idiots. "Because the very brazenness of your violations invariably brings you to the attention of the police." That's the point, you raving loon, Israel isn't any more brazen than anyone else (i.e. Grozny, Hama, Black September) Your analogy SUCKS! It does nothing to counter the allegations of discrimination. It just makes you look more and more like an idiot.
"Well in your last post to me in #339 you said "I never did to begin with. Take your meds."" My words don't state what you claimed I stated, dopey. Wasn't Pinochet released on medical grounds? Weren't BOTH Spain AND Britain involved -- not just some gung-ho British judge acting on complaints from anti-Israeli organizations?
"Q: So, not about Israel? A: Nope." You do understand the forum you are on, and that the issue you addressed is discrimination against Israel, right? Otherwise, what's your analogy in reference to? Are you on some other planet?
"In the meanwhile, the UN did NOTHING to stop or even discourage Hamas." Since when was the UN an international peace keeping force in Gaza? Since when did Israel even want an international peace keeping force in Gaza? "So the logical conclusion of all that had to be something like operation Cast Led. If lesser force does NOT work then they have to find the level of force that DOES work" Not unless 'your' logic precludes you from examining other options. Like a ceasefire which had achieved a 98% reduction in qassam firing only weeks before Cast Lead.It does however require something like Cast Lead if the objective is to punish Gazans who might then punish Hamas. "Any self respecting country has to defend it`s citizens from enemy attacks." If it can do that by means other than slaughtering and maiming thousands it behooves it to do so.If it 'is' self respecting. "As for the rest of your post about how Hamas would have been prepared to stop it`s attacks "if only ... " that just does NOT bear up to reality." Only that was the reality between the June ceasefire and Nov 4th. "Hamas was the one who was NOT prepared to renew the cease fire unconditionally." Might that be that they were fed up with seeing their children malnourished and their sewerage flowing through the streets and that they might want to achieve what Israelis claim they could have achieved after Sharon redeployed from Gaza. All they wanted was a lifting of the siege in return for a cessation of firing. You call that a weak party driving a hard bargain. Some might fairly call it, asking for the bare minimum in order to live in a modicum of dignity and peace. It is less than serious to quoite the defiant statement of a hamas official made after Israel itself had rejected a lifting of the siege in return for an extended ceasefire. It was and is plain that Israel is scared of peace with Hamas, lest it weaken the more compliant Fatah in the West Bank and place Israel in a position of having to reach an agreement with the very same group they helped sustain during the 80s when they were trying desperately to hold off the PLO. Talk about a vicious circle!
SDHD: "So, this incredible legal system of yours can become so incredibly petty and discriminate based on, 'flaunting.' " *sigh* The principle I attempted to illustrate: It ain't "profiling" if you concentrate on taking someone down BECAUSE they are brazenly violating the law. If that were the case then you reach a manifestly absurd result i.e. the MORE openly and blatantly you violate that law then the MORE immune you become to law inforcement. Q: How so? A: Because the very brazenness of your violations invariably brings you to the attention of the police. Q: So? A: According to SDHD-logic the very act of the police turning their attention towards this brazen violator of the law is "illegal". Q: How so? A: Because in SDHD-world that is "profiling". Your argument is manifestly absurd, because it results in an absurdity.
Well in your last post to me in #339 you said "I never did to begin with. Take your meds." ... in response to my quoting YOUR own claim. reference given here in #332, relating to a recent talk back: "ADSD do you still insist that the `Pinochet` case was decided by an `international court` in the UK?" tzdik question for ADSD in#332. Now you talk about a Spanish Court issuing a warrant? But it was a British court who decided the case. NOT an INTERNATIONAL one dimwit! NOW you simply state "there was international involvement". ADSD climb down as he reassess his own idiocy. A bit of a difference from "The COURT was *INTERNATIONAL*" YOUR words ADSD in post #77 in the below haaretz talk back: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135497.html
TR: "Really? JB Old boy? I thought this whole discussion was about Israel." !!!!!!!! Go back to my post of #276 Q: Was that post about Israel? A: No, it EXPLICITELY said in the title that it was about a point of law, and I used an ANALOGY regarding speeding to explain that point of law. Q: So, not about Israel? A: Nope. TR: "Really? JB Old boy? I thought this whole discussion was about Israel." As. Thick. As. A. Brick.
"Cop: Of all the speedsters he is one of the most baldfaced about his continued violation of the law, and one of the most outspoken about his RIGHT to speed." So, this incredible legal system of yours can become so incredibly petty and discriminate based on, "flaunting." "Now, SDHD, a question for you: Q: Is that "profiling"?" Not even close. It's you taking an already crappy analogy and making a fool of yourself even more. "Flaunting" is the best lame excuse you can come up with? If Israel turns Gaza into Grozny, but doesn't "flaunt it," will the cop let Israel go the way he let Russia go? Or China? The U.S.? Britain? Syria? Johnboy, your analogy totally sucked before. Now you're just painting yourself that much more the desperate fool. You're not embarrassed?
"They were more restrained than in Cast Lead that is clear, however they were nevertheless quite brutal and hardly `restrained` per se"(Syracuse) The point is this Syracuse: Israeli civilians were under constant attack by Hamas for years. Yes, Israel responded with progressively greater force in order to persuade Hamas to STOP it's attack on Israeli civilians. In the meanwhile, the UN did NOTHING to stop or even discourage Hamas. So the logical conclusion of all that had to be something like operation Cast Led. If lesser force does NOT work then they have to find the level of force that DOES work. Any self respecting country has to defend it's citizens from enemy attacks. Your country did the same, that's why they are now in Afghanistan ... As for the rest of your post about how Hamas would have been prepared to stop it's attacks "if only ... " that just does NOT bear up to reality. Hamas was the one who was NOT prepared to renew the cease fire unconditionally. It made demands on Israel yet Hamas was not prepared to meet Israel's counter conditions (the release of Gilad Shalit). That's equivalent to attempting to dictate and in this case, an attempt by the weaker party to the stronger party. No one would advocate such a position to be realistic yet it seems that in the case of Israel, some so called progressives expect Israel to cave in to every Hamas demand. And cave in when Hamas made provocative bellicose statements like the one below, days before operation Cast Led: "Was Gaza liberated through negotiations? Hamas will continue to wield its weapons and to claim its right to resist. Resistance will [continue to] be a strategic option until the last piece of Palestinian land is liberated, and until the last refugee returns?.?(Khaled Meshal) Does that sound like Hamas intended to stop it's war before their dream of destroying Israel comes true? In other words, by their own admission, as far as Hamas is concerned, their fight with Israel is a fight to the death ...
Anyone who is interested may read Johnboy's #300. In that post, JB clearly attributed to me claims/attitudes that I have not expressed (and which I repeatedly tried to explain to him that IT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING ? talking about talking to a brick wall). So JB old boy, what you have been doing is the very definition of building a straw man and then "heroically" knocking it down. Then, to compound your clownishness you tried to turn the tables on me and accused me that I am the one with the straw man argument by inserting this spurious bit: "The moment that *you* reply with anything containing the word "Israel" is the moment when *you* are no longer addressing my analogy...Get it?"(Johnboy) Really? JB Old boy? I thought this whole discussion was about Israel. But it seems that your analogy addressed something entirely different. What, pray tell, the tooth fairy perhaps? And yes, I get it JB old boy. You are a self important bundle of little egos who has been cornered and you are NOT man enough to admit your mistake then move on... Oh well, cest lavie, I am eagerly awaiting your next response, I am sure you can keep me entertained for a little while longer.
I suggest that the difference between us is that I am Jewish first and Zionist second, while you are Zionist first. I also do not consider all the Palestinians as my enemy, only those elements among them resort to terror instead of dialogue. And I made no equation between any numbers of dead. I merely pointed out that the real crime is what leads to them, which is society's dismissal of human values. And lastly, you seem to believe that in order for Israel to overcome its adversaries and survive, it must discard those values. While I disagree and believe instead that by doing so, Israel is not only betraying all Jews, but is also betraying its own survival as a Jewish state.
M: "Am I wrong Johny? :-)" You appear to be wrong about a great many things, Meo. Indeed, I'm struggling to find a single post where you actually say something that is right. But do keep trying: after all, even a monkey will eventually type out some Shakespeare.
SDHD: "Johnboy, what would the judge say to an officer who only brought one ethnic group before him for speeding, while the general population consisted of over 100 ethnic groups?" Judge: What do you have to say to that accusation, officer? Cop: Your honour, the offender has persistenly insisted on shouting "you can't touch me, copper, so suck on this!!!" as he hoons down the road. Judge: So you haven't concentrated on him because of WHO HE IS? Cop: No, your honour, I have concentrated my efforts on him because of WHAT HE HAS BEEN DOING. Judge: How so, officer? Cop: Of all the speedsters he is one of the most baldfaced about his continued violation of the law, and one of the most outspoken about his RIGHT to speed. Judge: So in your opinion he has been asking for it? Cop: Yep, and he got it. Now, SDHD, a question for you: Q: Is that "profiling"?
"They were more restrained than in Cast Lead that is clear, however they were nevertheless quite brutal and hardly `restrained` per se"(Syracuse) The point is this Syracuse: Israeli civilians were under constant attack by Hamas for years. Yes, Israel responded with progressively greater force in order to persuade Hamas to STOP it's attack on Israeli civilians. In the meanwhile, the UN did NOTHING to stop or even discourage Hamas. So the logical conclusion of all that had to be something like operation Cast Led. If lesser force does NOT work then they have to find the level of force that DOES work. Any self respecting country has to defend it's citizens from enemy attacks. Your country did the same, that's why they are now in Afghanistan ... As for the rest of your post about how Hamas would have been prepared to stop it's attacks "if only ... " that just does NOT bear up to reality. Hamas was the one who was NOT prepared to renew the cease fire unconditionally. It made demands on Israel yet Hamas was not prepared to meet Israel's counter conditions (the release of Gilad Shalit). That's equivalent to attempting to dictate and in this case, an attempt by the weaker party to the stronger party. No one would advocate such a position to be realistic yet it seems that in the case of Israel, some so called progressives expect Israel to cave in to every Hamas demand. And cave in when Hamas made provocative bellicose statements like the one below, days before operation Cast Led: "Was Gaza liberated through negotiations? Hamas will continue to wield its weapons and to claim its right to resist. Resistance will [continue to] be a strategic option until the last piece of Palestinian land is liberated, and until the last refugee returns?.?(Khaled Meshal) Does that sound like Hamas intended to stop it's war before their dream of destroying Israel comes true? In other words, by their own admission, as far as Hamas is concerned, their fight with Israel is a fight to the death ...
"They were more restrained than in Cast Lead that is clear, however they were nevertheless quite brutal and hardly `restrained` per se"(Syracuse) The point is this Syracuse: Israeli civilians were under constant attack by Hamas for years. Yes, Israel responded with progressively greater force in order to persuade Hamas to STOP it's attack on Israeli civilians. In the meanwhile, the UN did NOTHING to stop or even discourage Hamas. So the logical conclusion of all that had to be something like operation Cast Led. If lesser force does NOT work then they have to find the level of force that DOES work. Any self respecting country has to defend it's citizens from enemy attacks. Your country did the same, that's why they are now in Afghanistan ... As for the rest of your post about how Hamas would have been prepared to stop it's attacks "if only ... " that just does NOT bear up to reality. Hamas was the one who was NOT prepared to renew the cease fire unconditionally. It made demands on Israel yet Hamas was not prepared to meet Israel's counter conditions (the release of Gilad Shalit). That's equivalent to attempting to dictate and in this case, an attempt by the weaker party to the stronger party. No one would advocate such a position to be realistic yet it seems that in the case of Israel, some so called progressives expect Israel to cave in to every Hamas demand. And cave in when Hamas made provocative bellicose statements like the one below, days before operation Cast Led: "Was Gaza liberated through negotiations? Hamas will continue to wield its weapons and to claim its right to resist. Resistance will [continue to] be a strategic option until the last piece of Palestinian land is liberated, and until the last refugee returns?.?(Khaled Meshal) Does that sound like Hamas intended to stop it's war before their dream of destroying Israel comes true? In other words, by their own admission, as far as Hamas is concerned, their fight with Israel is a fight to the death ...
It seems that speeding is much more costly for Jews than for others. Care to explain why?Could it be the magic of someones profiling Johnboy? And for your record,I'm not a Jew.
Anyone who is interested may read Johnboy's #300 in which he pompously claimed the following: "1) You are speeding. 2) Everyone around you are also speeding. 3) You therefore believe that *their* speeding makes you immune from a speeding ticket. 4) You get a speeding ticket. All of which results in you frothing at the mouth and insisting that you are being "discriminated" against. You, Tim R, are an idiot " (Johnboy in his post #300) In that post, JB clearly attributed to me claims/attitudes that I have not expressed (and which I repeatedly tried to explain to him that IT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING ? talking about talking to a brick wall). So JB old boy, what you have been doing is the very definition of building a straw man and then "heroically" knocking it down. Then, to compound your clownishness you tried to turn the tables on me and accused me that I am the one with the straw man argument by inserting this spurious bit: "The moment that *you* reply with anything containing the word "Israel" is the moment when *you* are no longer addressing my analogy...Get it?"(Johnboy) Really? JB Old boy? I thought this whole discussion was about Israel. But it seems that your analogy addressed something entirely different. What, pray tell, the tooth fairy perhaps? And yes, I get it JB old boy. You are a self important bundle of little egos who has been cornered and you are NOT man enough to admit your mistake then move on... Oh well, cest lavie, I am eagerly awaiting your next response, I am sure you can keep me entertained for a little while longer.
I suggest that the difference between us is that I am Jewish first and Zionist second, while you are Zionist first. I also do not consider all the Palestinians as my enemy, only those elements among them resort to terror instead of dialogue. And I made no equation between any numbers of dead. I merely pointed out that the real crime is what leads to them, which is society's dismissal of human values. And lastly, you seem to believe that in order for Israel to overcome its adversaries and survive, it must discard those values. While I disagree and believe instead that by doing so, Israel is not only betraying all Jews, but is also betraying its own survival as a Jewish state.
and his posts are intended to polish his rhetorical skills. Am I wrong Johny? :-)
Johnboy, what would the judge say to an officer who only brought one ethnic group before him for speeding, while the general population consisted of over 100 ethnic groups? That one ethnic group should get 1% of the tickets, but it gets nearly 100% of them. He would say, "Johnboy, your analogy sucks!"
Johnboy is like the despised "Les Miserables" character, Inspector Javier. With a pitbull's myopic drive, he insists that the letter of the law must be followed, damn the big picture. What separates Johnboy from Javier is that Javier understands that the law must be applied equally to everyone. Johnboy believes discrimination against Israel, and Israel to near exclusivity is fine... Further, that Israel has no place to protest the discriminatory practices of the UNHRC. Johnboy shares Javier's myopia, but is a clear bigot when it comes to Israel.
M: "Yes,if you are a Jew.No it is not for those who are not Jews.Have you ever seen any non Jew to pay a ticket?" Quite a number of non-Jews were caught speeding in the "former Yugoslavia", Meo. Quite a number of non-Jews have been issued with speeding tickets in the Sudan, Meo. Even in YOUR neck o' the woods the Jews were not the only only who have a ticket written out for them by Constable Goldstone. Hamas, for example, got one too.
The judge says, "Johnboy's analogy sucks." The judge also chastises the officer for continually bringing the Jewish ambulance driver before the court while neglecting all the other persons speeding on the road. Johnboy, your analogy sucks.
JB: "Meo, is speeding against the law, or isn`t it?" SDHD: "Not 100% of the time, my dear fool, no." JB: "Violating the speed limit is a violation of the law UNLESS the law itself allows for a situation where the driver is allowed to exceed that speed limit." It's exactly what the law does in many circumstances, you dolt. However, the situation you are attempting to refute with your sucky analogy is not encapsulated by that analogy. SDHD: "Now, address the point about the sole Jewish driver out of 100 drivers getting 90% of the tickets, ignoramus" Moron: "In LAW it matters not the slightest i.e." Except, it does, especially when it comes to discrimination. "Shouting out "But THEY are all speeding too, so why did you only stop ME?" is not that excuse." You keep saying that. However, the Jew gets 90% of the tickets, though he has legitimate reason to speed, and he's 1% of the drivers, fool. "It is, in fact, an admission of guilt" I admit you're dumb.
TJ: "I ought to know because it is my profession." Really? Standards must be very lax where you practice. Either that, or you asked someone else to sit your bar exam for you. Still.... an entire talkback post build entirely around bombastic pontification? Yeah, I'm sure that's the hallmark of a Legal Eagle in some jurisdictions. You know, Banana Republics, places like that...
And repeating ad nauseum you are guilty even if they say yes we know that doesn't sweep away the fact of profiling of those who infringed the law before the judge lays the charges. "So sorry, but that logic has no place in any legal system;" Exactly Johnboy.There is no room for profiling in today society.I don't know any Western legal system considering peoples background first,before deciding if they have to pay ticket or not. "if you are guilty then you are guilty, and you can not complain when it is decided to make an example of **you** rather than *him*, or *her*". Again,I don't contest my guilt,I know I'm guilty of speeding so making example of my case is rather a warning to others like me because people from the other group know they can go fast,that we are the only one paying tickets for speeding, "Meo,is speeding against the law, or isn`t it?" Yes,if you are a Jew.No it is not for those who are not Jews.Have you ever seen any non Jew to pay a ticket? And that's why your analogy sucks.Simply because there is no judge digging in the pile of parking tickets looking for tickets with Jewish names.You had to creat him Johnboy because he doesn't exist. What do you think about referee punishing just one team Johnboy?
JB: "Meo, is speeding against the law, or isn`t it?" SDHD: "Not 100% of the time, my dear fool, no." Violating the speed limit is a violation of the law UNLESS the law itself allows for a situation where the driver is allowed to exceed that speed limit. SDHD: "Now, address the point about the sole Jewish driver out of 100 drivers getting 90% of the tickets, ignoramus" In LAW it matters not the slightest i.e. 1) that person exceeded the speed limit, 2) exceeding the speed limit is against the law, 3) If he is stopped and booked then he has to provide an argument for WHY HIS SPEEDING IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THAT LAW. Shouting out "But THEY are all speeding too, so why did you only stop ME?" is not that excuse. It is, in fact, an admission of guilt.
"You have merely shoved *my* analogy to one side so that you can substitute your own ediface in its place." Johnboy, you'd come off as less of a fool if you shoved that analogy back into where you pulled it out of.
"Meo, is speeding against the law, or isn`t it?" Not 100% of the time, my dear fool, no. Now, address the point about the sole Jewish driver out of 100 drivers getting 90% of the tickets, ignoramus.
"It would be more honest to admit that reality, than claim that Israel did everything to avoid Cast Lead but were forced to act. This simply does not stand up to the scantest scrutiny." Of course not. One ground invasion after 8 years of rocket attacks isn't "avoiding" a military incursion. "Even if you insist that Israel did the correct thing in launching the raid( I believe it did not)" Of course you don't. You have some sort of "portray the Palestinians as the victims" agenda. Meanwhile, they breached the ceasefire by smuggling weapons through Egypt and by digging a tunnel into Israel. Israel's operation was of a limited scale, meanwhile, it was met with dozens of rockets a day fired into Israel, with plenty of advanced warning from Israel that they would launch an invasion to stop the rockets. "One example would be the firing of over 2000 artillery shells" 142 artillery shells/day in a war? That's restrained.
You do realize the arrest warrant was from Spain, because of deaths involving Spanish citizens, right? Thereby, there was international involvement. What does Britain arresting Israeli politicians have to do with it, dopey?
"So you are agreeing with me i.e. a violator of the law can not assuage HIS guilt by claiming that everyone else is also guilty." We're talking about someone who is speeding with good cause (I've already said that before, dummy). And he is the one who receives 90% of the citations. It's called, discrimination, dummy.
"Tell it to the judge, SDHD, and see how far you get." You said that already. Your analogy still sucks. What do you think the judge would say if the cop cited the ONLY Jew 90% of the time? Your analogy sucks!!!!!
TR: "#332 Your Analogy Is The One That Does NOT Work Johnboy" JB: "You have "refuted" my analogy by simply sweeping it to one side." Both Tim and me continue to demolish your analogy in several different ways. Not only is it being swept to one side, it's being turned upside down, inside out, and it keeps being demonstrated that you pulled it out of your nether regions.
" Tim R, I spelt out an analogy involving speeding cars and highway patrolmen." Yes, you did, and it sucked. It still sucks. We keep pointing out all the different ways in which it sucks. We are talking about discrimination against Israel, dopey. Your analogy doesn't change that fact.
Copied and pasted from a source which knows more than you, imbecile.
M: "Nobody is refusing to pay ticket for speeding because it is not about guilty or not." So you are agreeing with me i.e. a violator of the law can not assuage HIS guilt by claiming that everyone else is also guilty. M: "It is about profiling people before "your" judge decides to lay charges against them." So sorry, but that logic has no place in any legal system; if you are guilty then you are guilty, and you can not complain when it is decided to make an example of **you** rather than *him*, or *her*. M: "What`s next Johnboy,revoking their drivers licence because statistically they are the only ones having speeding problem?" Meo, is speeding against the law, or isn't it? Meo, if it *is* (and it is) then are you violating the law when you speed, or aren't you? Meo, if it *is* a violation of the law (and it is) then what is your excuse FOR YOUR LAWBREAKING if you are booked? Ans: You have no excuse.
Johnboy as usual totaly wrong and his posts do SUCK as far as I have read over the months even years. SDHD is top,so is Tim R who is a good debater Without reverting to manipulative verbiage and spouting nonsense. Profiling people before the judge decides to lay charges against them or anyone is absurd. I ought to know because it is my profession. Finally Johnboy has to ammend his view points before he decides to present his case,that he has no absolute knowledge of. I rest my case. Court is now in recess
Nobody is refusing to pay ticket for speeding because it is not about guilty or not. It is about profiling people before "your" judge decides to lay charges against them. And that is much closer to the persecution than to the public safety because speeding drivers from other group are not targetted thus still represent danger to the public. What's next Johnboy,revoking their drivers licence because statistically they are the only ones having speeding problem? Btw,what do you think about referee punishing just one team?
I would take issue with two major points in your post. You say "I am saying that prior to operation Cast Led, Israel was more restrained in it`s response to Hamas`s attacks on Israeli civilians." They were more restrained than in Cast Lead that is clear, however they were nevertheless quite brutal and hardly 'restrained' per se. One example would be the firing of over 2000 artillery shells (each of an order of magnitude more powerful than any qassam)into Gaza during just one two week period in April 2006. (sources available if required). That's just one example of a huge number. So no one could legitimately claim they were restrained. You then say, "However, since the restrained response did not stop Hamas`s attacks..." Well, I already spoke of the lack of restraint that had led to the deaths of over a thousand Gazan civilians BEFORE Cast Lead, but that comment still belies the fact that during the ceasefire with the admission of Israeli gov spokesmen the ceasefire had seen a 98% reduction in qassam fire up to the Nov 4th raid. Even if you insist that Israel did the correct thing in launching the raid( I believe it did not)your contention that an even more brutal attack was necessary is still unconvincing. Due to the fact that right up into Dec 2008 Hamas were still asking for a resumption of the ceasefire in Gaza in return for a lifting of the economic siege. For Israel the siege was crucial though. They dare not let up on the policy of punishing Gaza in order that Gaza would punish Hamas. It would be more honest to admit that reality, than claim that Israel did everything to avoid Cast Lead but were forced to act. This simply does not stand up to the scantest scrutiny. The withdrawal from Gaza? Well that would be 3 points of issue and I wont push my luck with the censor. Regards J.Syracuse.
I would take issue with two major points in your post. You say "I am saying that prior to operation Cast Led, Israel was more restrained in it`s response to Hamas`s attacks on Israeli civilians." They were more restrained than in Cast Lead that is clear, however they were nevertheless quite brutal and hardly 'restrained' per se. One example would be the firing of over 2000 artillery shells (each of an order of magnitude more powerful than any qassam)into Gaza during just one two week period in April 2006. (sources available if required). That's just one example of a huge number. So no one could legitimately claim they were restrained. You then say, "However, since the restrained response did not stop Hamas`s attacks..." Well, I already spoke of the lack of restraint that had led to the deaths of over a thousand Gazan civilians BEFORE Cast Lead, but that comment still belies the fact that during the ceasefire with the admission of Israeli gov spokesmen the ceasefire had seen a 98% reduction in qassam fire up to the Nov 4th raid. Even if you insist that Israel did the correct thing in launching the raid( I believe it did not)your contention that an even more brutal attack was necessary is still unconvincing. Due to the fact that right up into Dec 2008 Hamas were still asking for a resumption of the ceasefire in Gaza in return for a lifting of the economic siege. For Israel the siege was crucial though. They dare not let up on the policy of punishing Gaza in order that Gaza would punish Hamas. It would be more honest to admit that reality, than claim that Israel did everything to avoid Cast Lead but were forced to act. This simply does not stand up to the scantest scrutiny. The withdrawal from Gaza? Well that would be 3 points of issue and I wont push my luck with the censor. Regards J.Syracuse.
SDHD: "You can claim unfair treatment on all sorts of levels given your simpleton`s analogy." Tell it to the judge, SDHD, and see how far you get. Cop: The driver was booked for speeding, your honour. SDHD: He picked on me! Everyone else was speeding, but he only stopped me! Judge: Soooo, you admit you were speeding? How do you answer the judge, SDHD? SDHD: "It has not yet been determined that Israel is guilty" You get ahead of yourself. We are discussing the ANALOGY, and the analogy is completely self-contained i.e. we can reach a consensis regarding it without bringing in any "other cases". We - you and I - haven't reached that consensis yet, and so trying to apply the analogy to "other cases" is premature, and DOING SO by bringing in "other cases" is a straw man. Tim R does not understand that, but there is no need for you to repeat his boorishness.
TR: "#332 Your Analogy Is The One That Does NOT Work Johnboy" ...and with one bound, Pauline was free of her bonds and had leapt clear of the track... You have "refuted" my analogy by simply sweeping it to one side. And you swept it off the table in order to make room for..... TR: "Try This analogy instead:" Hahahahahahahahah! That's a straw man, Tim R. You have merely shoved *my* analogy to one side so that you can substitute your own ediface in its place. Fine, but that means that FROM THAT POINT ON you are merely arguing with a little voice inside your head, and not with me. It's getting rather pathetic watching a one-trick-pony trotting out the same ol' schtick. Try something different next time.
TR: "No, I added it to show you what I was really saying, NOT what you claimed I was saying." Tim R, I spelt out an analogy involving speeding cars and highway patrolmen. The moment that *you* reply with anything containing the word "Israel" is the moment when *you* are no longer addressing my analogy. Get it? No, of course not; you are much too busy arguing with the voices in your head. Again, I will point you to SDHD i.e. even a Bear With Little Brain can resist the temtation to argue with his inner monalogue. What's your excuse?
"ADSD do you still insist that the `Pinochet` case was decided by an `international court` in the UK?" tzadik #332 I never did to begin with. Take your meds.ADHD #339 "Pinochet was arrested in London in October 17 1988 under a Spanish warrant and released in March 2000 on medical grounds by the Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial. The COURT was *INTERNATIONAL*, not a British kangaroo court, then released. He [Pinochet]was subsequently arrested in Chile" ADSD #77 in the below haaretz talk back: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135497.html Moron.
I will just take a portion of your post. i.e Furthermore, any soldier who harbors hate for an enemy population is a potential war criminal. And any army who fosters that hate, inflames it with fear, allows it to be focused by elements of religious fanatism. There you see how you have taken a one sided view.I mean on RELIGIOUS fanatism that is the main cause by the extremists Islamists tat you have ot taken into account.Strange to say the least W.T.F. Tell me,are an arabist? Further no Zionist you friend(may I call you that)? Another reminder:Your equating the six milion dead versus a mere some thousands(and not the Arab/Palestinians in this instance)but the rest of the Arab/Islamisists who kill each other mercilessly. Your and mine Jewish land is what I care aout and its survival. I think you assume that:My country,my people plus the IDF should all be ?like Caesar?s wife above suspicion?? That is too much to ask any nation particularely OURS. Or else surrender like lambs to the slaughter taking it lying down-- At the whims of our enemies who?s only desire is:The annihilation of my/your country( you seem to care so much) ISRAEL?
We Jews are supposed to take it lying down whithout a whimper.So long as it pleases his likes NO DOUBT. Expected by many that we are very aware of in any case....BS It makes a mockery of dealing in honesty and thus Jews must accept it with ease? Don't complain,become the lambs to the slaughter and let all the others trample on our very existence. That in a nutshell is the likes of Syracuse et al.
"Tim R forgive me for intruding but..."(Syracuse) No, no, not at all ... feel free to say your bit and I am happy to debate anyone. That's what the talkback is for, isn't it? "If you are then would you not consider that a more correct analogy would have been that your neighbors had themselves been subject to approximately 100 times as many broken limbs and noses in the period that you were apparently taking it `laying down"(Syracuse) I never said that Israel WAS laying down. But I am saying that prior to operation Cast Led, Israel was more restrained in it's response to Hamas's attacks on Israeli civilians. However, since the restrained response did not stop Hamas's attacks and since the UN was NOT doing anything to stop Hamas's crimes. The gloves had to come off ... Would you expect anything less from your government if you and your children were subject to similar circumstances, continually for years? By the way, SDHD is absolutely right. The Palestinian Arabs were the ones who started the violence back in the 1920s and they NEVER stopped it to this day. Israel made all sorts of offers and gestures for the sake of peace but to no avail. For instance, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, in August 2005, dismantled all it's settlements there and what did it get in return? ANSWER: More rockets and the abduction of Gilad Shalit .... That's why I stand by my analogy, Syracuse.
"ADSD do you still insist that the `Pinochet` case was decided by an `international court` in the UK?" I never did to begin with. Take your meds.
"YOU CAN NOT CLAIM "DISCRIMINATION" WHEN YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE CHARGE" 1) Yes, you can. You can claim unfair treatment on all sorts of levels given your simpleton's analogy. 2) It has not yet been determined that Israel is guilty. It's only been determined that your "police department," keeps arresting the Jew for the allegation of speeding, and hasn't arrested anyone else, dunce.
"If you are then would you not consider that a more correct analogy would have been that your neighbors had themselves been subject to approximately 100 times as many broken limbs and noses in the period that you were apparently taking it `laying down`" You do understand that the Palestinian Arabs began attacking the Palestinian Jews in 1920 and have never stopped, don't you? Were the Jews supposed to take the abuse lying down? Are they supposed to continue taking it lying down?
In some ways you are correct,but! I have no time as yet today to reply in detail on your vision on Israel/Jews versus Hamas or their fundemtalism that is perpetrating their mode of life and by association generating hate toward Israel. But point taken...in brief we Jews will have to be a "Light on to the nations"?? Well W.T.F I happen to believe that being the CHOSEN and THE THE "LIGHT ONTO THE NATIONS" has gotten us nowhere but more grief.Let them hate us,so long as they FEAR US. That's my moto,and many of our brethen think the same I am sure. More perhaps later,and thanks for your reply. W/B
Are you suggesting that the analogy you now propose does indeed describe Israel's position vis a vis the Palestinians, namely those in Gaza prior to Cast Lead? If you are then would you not consider that a more correct analogy would have been that your neighbors had themselves been subject to approximately 100 times as many broken limbs and noses in the period that you were apparently taking it 'laying down' and that they had in turn been offering to negotiate some reasonable terms so as to cease the violence by addressing some of both of your claims but you had for your own reasons chosen to ignore them?
Try This analogy instead: Say you would be under constant physical attack by your neighbours. Being a good citizen, you ring the police but they just fob you off and do nothing because your neighbours are well connected and have powerful friends ... Would you take it laying down forever? Seeing your kids coming home every second day bloodied and with broken limbs? I don`t know about you but most people would NOT. Most would try the lawful way first but eventually if the police wouldn`t help, then they would defend themselves one way or the other, especially if moving away would NOT be an option.
"Do you know what a straw man is?"(Tim R) "Well, ONE of us doesn`t...."(Johnboy) You of course don't ... "In my (1) I said that one possibility is that Israel is guilty."(Tim R) "That is **YOUR** postulate, not mine, and you added it IN ORDER FOR YOU TO ARGUE FOR/AGAINST IT"(Johnboy) No, I added it to show you what I was really saying, NOT what you claimed I was saying.
SDHD: "The subject is systematic discrimination" YOU CAN NOT CLAIM "DISCRIMINATION" WHEN YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE CHARGE *sheesh* If you violate a law then you can be booked. Law enforcement is ENTITLED to book **you** and that is true REGARDLESS of wether No-one Else gets booked. 1) He can decide to "make an example" of you; he has that authority. 2) He can decide **not** to "make an example" of anyone else; he has that authority. That is not "discrimination", because: 1) HE isn't responsible for your actions: you are. 2) HE isn't responsible for your guilt: you are. 3) HE isn't responsible for your criminal actions: you are. You are guilty of the charge that is brought against you, and so you have **no** excuse if you get pinged.
TR: "Do you know what a straw man is?" Well, ONE of us doesn't.... TR: "In my (1) I said that one possibility is that Israel is guilty." That is **YOUR** postulate, not mine, and you added it IN ORDER FOR YOU TO ARGUE FOR/AGAINST IT. Get it? The moment that **YOU** add your baggage to the saddle bag is exactly the moment when **YOU** ceased to argue with me i.e. from that moment on YOU were conducting an internal monologue, not a debate. AND (laughably) you insist on patting yourself on the back for convincing yourself of the correctness of your own arguments.
"1. Either Israel may be guilty."(Tim R) Read my original analogy: GUILT is not a "possibility", it is "a given"(Johnboy) To you maybe Johnboy and maybe even to Goldstone, but there are many people and organizations who are disputing the fact that GUILT is a given. That's what our debate is all about ... "Tim`s (1) is therefore a straw man"(Johnboy) Do you know what a straw man is? In my (1) I said that one possibility is that Israel is guilty. I then went on to ask that even if it was so (although it's NOT yet proven) why didn't the corrupt and biased UN do it's job 10 years earlier and throw the book at Hamas, for their crimes against Israeli civilians? And I ventured to say that if they had done their job without fear or favour, then more than likely Israel would NOT have been forced to initiate Operation Cast LED. But seeing that the UN didn't do it's duty and Israeli civilians were under constant attack, Israel had to do something to defend it's citizens. Do you want a better analogy than your own, Johnboy? Here ... Say you would be under constant physical attack by your neighbours. Being a good citizen, you ring the police but they just fob you off and do nothing because your neighbours are well connected and have powerful friends ... Would you take it laying down forever? Seeing your kids coming home every second day bloodied and with broken limbs? I don't know about you but most people would NOT. Most would try the lawful way first but eventually if the police wouldn't help, then they would defend themselves one way or the other, especially if moving away would NOT be an option. See JB, NO straw man from me so far, I did NOT put words in your mouth, I just analyzed the consequences of UN corruption, of NOT doing THEIR job properly. "2. Or Israel may NOT be guilty because it is impossible to avoid loss of civilian lives in 99.99% of wars "(Tim R) "Again, my original analogy is PREDICATED UPON GUILT, and so Tim R is still building straw men"(Johnboy) But I was NOT talking about your analogy. Or am I not allowed to make my own points when I am debating with you? Your analogy on the other hand pretended that I adopted a certain line of defense for Israel. You pretended that I would say to the judge something like: "They did it so why can't we do it too ..." But in reality, that's NOT what I have been saying at all. What I did say in my (2) is that civilian casualties are virtually unavoidable in 99.99% of all wars, as is evidenced by those paragons of virtue, the EU and Obama in whose war there are as many civilian casualties as there was in Israel's operation Cast Led. I used that to show to you that in all probability, like NATO, Israel could not avoid inflicting civilian casualties either. That's why your argument WAS a straw man argument Johnboy, Because you pretended that I said something that I did NOT say ....
"TR: "Johnboy Makes Up Straw Men And Then Knocks It Down" JB: "Prontification as debate, Tim R?" You think recognizing the futility of pounding a simple, reasonable thought into your head... as being increasingly futile... has anything to do with it? You think there's no entertainment value in poking fun at how seriously you take your analogy?
Tell it to the judge, SDHD. No, seriously, I mean it." SDHD: ?When everyone`s speeding, and you`re the only one picked on, it`s a valid complaint, buffoon.? JB: "Sunshine, if you are caught speeding then you will be mercilessly mocked by the judge if you offered that as an excuse." The subject is systematic discrimination. You're coming up with a "single incident" analogy as a refutation. Your imaginary judge is part of the problem posed in your analogy. Tell us who your judge is, and I'll help demonstrate that your analogy continues to suck. THINK McFly. THINK!
I don't care what Hamas does, what it has done in the past, or what it may do tomorrow. But I do care about what is done by Israelis and Jews, because unlike YOU, I believe there should be a moral distinction between Hamas and Israelis. The Gaza operation has raised serious doubt about that distinction. You can rationalize it, and justify it, and make all the pretenses you want about the IDF claims of protecting civilians, but you're WRONG! Furthermore, any soldier who harbors hate for an enemy population is a potential war criminal. And any army who fosters that hate, inflames it with fear, allows it to be focused by elements of religious fanaticism, and then gives it an unfettered opportunity to act of its own accord, is guilty of a war crime. I am an Israeli Jew, not a Nazi. I don't want the difference between the two blurred by history, and I don't want it to remember MY Jewish homeland as it does their Germany . Make no mistake, neither the crime, nor the stigma and shame that follows, lies in the multitude of its victims. The crime is the absence of human values, whether the victims of the crime number six, or six million!
TR: "Johnboy Makes Up Straw Men And Then Knocks It Down" Prontification as debate, Tim R? I put up an analogy. I have staunchly defended that analogy. I still insist that nobody has dented it. Nowhere in there will you see a straw man. But what about you? Why, *your* laughable attempt at "rebuttal" has consisted entirely of you attempting to **add** your own Extra Baggage in the Saddle Bag, and then you have argued for/against **your** additions. You did so Yet Again in post #306, which is just one long straw-man-making-session. It is oh-so-tedious, and doubly so when even a dimwit like SDHD at least has the commonsense (and good grace) to argue against **me**, rather than against a straw man of his own creation.
TR: "So lets take it further:" This is, of course, precisely where Tim R starts to construct a straw man... TR: "1. Either Israel may be guilty." Read my original analogy: GUILT is not a "possibility", it is "a given". Tim's (1) is therefore a straw man. TR: "2. Or Israel may NOT be guilty because it is impossible to avoid loss of civilian lives in 99.99% of wars " Again, my original analogy is PREDICATED UPON GUILT, and so Tim R is still building straw men. TR: "You concentrated on possibility 1" We can stop right there, because Tim R has just belled the cat on himself. I did NOT "concentrate on possibility 1", precisley because my analogy is PREDICATED UPON GUILT i.e. Tim R isn't actually arguing against me, only against a predicate THAT HE HAS JUST CREATED FOR HIMSELF. TR: "With me so far JB old boy?" Yeah, I am: *your* laughable attempt at "debate" consists entirely of *you* arguing against *your* *own* straw man.
No, seriously, I mean it. SDHD: ?When everyone`s speeding, and you`re the only one picked on, it`s a valid complaint, buffoon.? Sunshine, if you are caught speeding then you will be mercilessly mocked by the judge if you offered that as an excuse. And the reason WHY is simple: 1) Nobody Made You Speed, You Chose To Do It. 2) A Cop Has The Right To Book Anyone Who Is Speeding. 3) You Therefore Have No Excuse If He Choses To Book YOU. *sheesh* Look, I'm not kidding, SDHD; *you* go speeding down Route 443, and when *you* are the only one booked then *you* can offer your explanation to the magistrate, and we'll see where that excuse gets *you*. It'll get you a clear run to the slammer. SDHD: ?And if everyone`s speeding, then who`s to say what the status quo should be?? !!!! SDHD is claiming the right of criminals to gang together and decide that "the law" no longer matters. How very zionist of you.
ADSD do you still insist that the 'Pinochet' case was decided by an 'international court' in the UK? That the British House of Lords is regarded by you as an "international court" of law. "Pinochet was arrested in London in October 17 1988 under a Spanish warrant and released in March 2000 on medical grounds by the Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial. The court was *international*, not a British kangaroo court, then released. He [Pinochet]was subsequently arrested in Chile" ADSD #77 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135497.html
ADSD do you still insist that the 'Pinochet' case was decided by an 'international court' in the UK? That the British House of Lords is regarded by you as an "international court" of law. "Pinochet was arrested in London in October 17 1988 under a Spanish warrant and released in March 2000 on medical grounds by the Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial. The court was *international*, not a British kangaroo court, then released. He [Pinochet]was subsequently arrested in Chile" ADSD #77 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135497.html
I don't care what Hamas does, what it has done in the past, or what it may do tomorrow. But I do care about what is done by Israelis and Jews, because unlike YOU, I believe there should be a moral distinction between Hamas and Israelis. The Gaza operation has raised serious doubt about that distinction. You can rationalize it, and justify it, and make all the pretenses you want about the IDF claims of protecting civilians, but you're WRONG! Furthermore, any soldier who harbors hate for an enemy population is a potential war criminal. And any army who fosters that hate, inflames it with fear, allows it to be focused by elements of religious fanaticism, and then gives it an unfettered opportunity to act of its own accord, is guilty of a war crime. I am an Israeli Jew, not a Nazi. I don't want the difference between the two blurred by history, and I don't want it to remember MY Jewish homeland as it does their Germany . Make no mistake, neither the crime, nor the stigma and shame that follows, lies in the multitude of its victims. The crime is the absence of human values, whether the victims of the crime number six, or six million!
SDHD I will repeat what I wrote if I can remember. Silly dunce telling us how we should conduct our wars... That's by the way.The Faluja okay,but what about the rest like mmmm for instance Iraq,Afghanistan and the rest? And part of my original: Presumtive approach as to where they could have relocated.The places you mentioned were the very hedquarters of where the Islamists hide their weapons you dumb bite. They use ambulances, mosques,schools,even the UN buildings for their dirty work. Let's call it by its method and the "pallywood" excercise they pursue. I bet you belong to their tribe ha? Well hard luck you sleep with DOGS WAKE UP WITH FLEAS. : Bottom line that is the situation. Now bug out for you know nothing,bar making stupid unwarranted accusations.But then it is an obvious fact you are all one big trouble making people who deserve no sympathy.
"SDHD: Johnboy Makes Up Straw Men And Then Knocks It Down .He is a legend in his own eyes ..... :)" I know. We're talking about an overt pattern of discrimination. Johnboy attempts to refute the assertion by analogizing to a one-time offense. The funniest part is how he struggles to maintain the veracity of his crappy analogy, as if his analogy is the lynchpin of the whole argument.
"They told them to flee to where? " Away from the immediate area which was about to be attacked. In modern history, how many forces have warned exactly where they are going to attack in advance? You come up with Fallujah. Nice. That's one. You give them credit, right? But you don't give Israel credit at all. "They attacked the UN safehouses " Really? How many of those were attacked? The SINGLE ONE which had enemy fire coming from it?
....He is a legend in his own eyes ..... :)
Your single-incident, "man speeding" analogy is not a credible refutation for the disproportionate treatment of Israel seen in the UN.
ADSD do you still insist that the 'Pinochet' case was decided by an 'international court' in the UK? That the British House of Lords is regarded by you as an "international court" of law. "Pinochet was arrested in London in October 17 1988 under a Spanish warrant and released in March 2000 on medical grounds by the Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial. The court was *international*, not a British kangaroo court, then released. He [Pinochet]was subsequently arrested in Chile" ADSD #77 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135497.html
Presumtive approach as to where they could have relocated.The places you mentioned were the very hedquarters of where the Islamists hide their weapons you dumb bite. They use ambulances, mosques,schools,even the UN buildings for their dirty work. Let's call it by its method and the "pallywood" excercise they pursue. I bet you belong to their tribe ha? Well hard luck you sleep with DOGS WAKE UP WITH FLEAS. : Bottom line that is the situation. Now bug out for you know nothing,bar making stupid unwarranted accusations.But then it is an obvious fact you are all one big trouble making people who deserve no sympathy.
"1) Why are they picking on me when I`m innocent! 2) Why are they picking on me when everyone else does it too! A moment`s consideration will tell you that Statement (1) is a perfectly valid complaint. Statement (2) is not only invalid, it is also an admission of guilt." When everyone's speeding, and you're the only one picked on, it's a valid complaint, buffoon. And if everyone's speeding, then who's to say what the status quo should be? What about the basic speed law, which states that you may exceed the posted speed depending on conditions? Your analogy sucks, johnboy.
"Does anyone forget how the IDF flew over warning the Gaza residents with leaflets to stay safe?How many countries have ever resorted to inform the enemy to keep out of a battle zone?" They told them to flee to where? They attacked the UN safehouses where many went to escape the bombing and those who came out with white flags were shot. As for "How many countries have ever resorted to inform the enemy to keep out of a battle zone?" Well try the US in Fallujah MK2. They also gave all those over 50 and all women and children the chance to leave the town before they attacked it. They gave them somewhere to run to-GET IT?. dope.
"Does anyone forget how the IDF flew over warning the Gaza residents with leaflets to stay safe?How many countries have ever resorted to inform the enemy to keep out of a battle zone?" They told them to flee to where? They attacked the UN safehouses where many went to escape the bombing and those who came out with white flags were shot. As for "How many countries have ever resorted to inform the enemy to keep out of a battle zone?" Well try the US in Fallujah MK2. They also gave all those over 50 and all women and children the chance to leave the town before they attacked it. They gave them somewhere to run to-GET IT?. dope.
He will go and ponder how to find an opposing feckless response giving vent toward your post Tim that you try,is admirable,but with his stubborn and lack of thought toward the true analysis and his thoughtlessnes nothing will emanate rather the reverse. Hey Tim,have you or anyone else read a postive response that maybe,just maybe,he can be wrong even one time? I call this arrogance not to agree to other's view point. Sorry for barging in,but I also thank you for reminding W.T.F of his misunderstanding the crux of the matter we have had to deal during Cast Lead. Does anyone forget how the IDF flew over warning the Gaza residents with leaflets to stay safe? How many countries have ever resorted to inform the enemy to keep out of a battle zone? I can go on,but it would take reams to put it out. For the ones who have a double vision which is always par for the so-called Palestinians. Blinded extremely versus Israel in their accusations toward the IDF.
In my original post I made a point in reply to your presumptious accusations(misinterpretation) when I inferred: " as many as possible"? I don't think you are that dimwitted.You must have a modicum in interprating my meaning,surely? If you had thought about it thoroughly,you would have deduced I meant:Yes as many as possible..i.e the terrorist entity and all their LREADERS. Now who is the FOOL?
You say:I am a hateful pup?Fine,but what would you call yourself ha? It is obvious,your disregard of the atrocities committed by Hamas et al against Israel is acceptable to you hmmm..Very revealing on your double standard which shows where your allegiences lie. When I said "as many as possible" I would have thought you'd have a modicum of brain power to what I referring fool.Not the demize of the civilians,but their corrupt and dreadful regime/leaders they created to keep their populace as slaves. In lieu of benefitting from acquiring Gaza(thru Sharon's folly)one would have imagined they'd build a viable state.But not them. The followers of the "MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD" and their charter speaks for itself. Bitter,bitter W.T.F shows your vileness thru' your post by equating Israel with Ham-ass,or even Fat-ass. The latter is the same side of the coin.And no better.Supposed to be "PARTNER FOR PEACE" B***T Tell you something the bloodlusters are not us Israelis/IDF/IAF BUT THEM
Saving the BS propaganda is bogus and according to you what Hamas does is valid? Hey old man don't you know they kill each other is that Israel's fault. You are a bypartizan to their so-called plight and think they are being treated unfairly how do you justify the fact they are replete with weapons solely to MURDER innocent Jewish residents. The Gush Katif settlers who had been encouraged to move to Gaza by the succesive Govts were there for 40+ years made the place bloom,and thanks to Sharon had to abandon the place which was a dream come true for any decent Arab. You must agree the resulting consequences once the TERROR entity took over and turned the place with all the infrastructures intact plus the new "hot houses " donated. Result? They destroyed it allthe Synagogues &everything within their reach.Nice eh? In lieu of benefitting by creating a viable state? Sheeeesh! If you approve their behaviour,then [YOU]ARE NO BETTER THAN THEM. Bloodlusters? NOT US,BUT THEM
"So why, Tim, do you insist on acting like an idiot?"(Johnboy) Poor Johnboy, why don't you use your head and just listen. Here, let me do your thinking for you ... I did say that what Israel did was not worse than what NATO did/does in Afghanistan. I also reminded you of Hamas?s crimes. So lets take it further: 1. Either Israel may be guilty. 2. Or Israel may NOT be guilty because it is impossible to avoid loss of civilian lives in 99.99% of wars ... You concentrated on possibility 1 and I must admit I played along with you because I wanted to highlight the corruption of the UN for NOT doing it's job properly. That is to police and prosecute without fear or favour. And in that context, I told you (remember?) that had the UN been diligent in it's duties (instead of corrupt), then they should have thrown the book at Hamas 10 years ago. And if they had, then quite probably Israel would NOT have had to initiate operation Cast Led ... With me so far JB old boy? Now consider possibility 2: I actually tend to favour this possibility because I know how strongly Obama and his European allies feel about human rights and the laws of war. I mean let's not forget that Obama is a NOBEL peace laureate, right JB old boy? Yet even NATO forces cannot avoid the accidental killing of civilians. So why does everyone including the corrupt politicized UN expect Israel to do better? Remember, I asked you this before JB old boy? Do you understand now Johnboy? Don't YOU feel like an idiot now, JB?
with a complete schlemiel is pointless. "If you are,then you sure belong to the "Hymies"...HA HA HA HA HA EH EH Yah!" #271 It conjured a picture of someone being led down a corridor strapped to a trolley...'HA HA HA HA HA EH EH Yah'. See what I mean?
"And save your BS propaganda about human shields"(Whiskey TangoFoxtrot) OK, what's your explanation? Why did Palestinian civilians get killed in operation Cast Led? Do you think Israeli soldiers deliberately execute civilians in cold blood?
Then you have no place pointing fingers at anything that Hamas does, you hate filled little pup! You're no better than they, and perhaps a bit worse. And save your BS propaganda about human shields for your fellow brownshirts buddy boy. Few if any of the civilian dead in Gaza resulted from that, and anyone that's capable of independent thought isn't buying it anymore. Its grown to be nothing more than a convenient line for the IDF, and bloodlusters like you, to cover its lack of concern for civilian casualties.
TR: "What we are talking about is that all the parties in our example have already been caught by the Radar." Bzzzzzzzzt. Wrong, but thanks for playing. Go back and READ WHAT I WROTE, Tim R. 1) You are speeding. 2) Everyone around you are also speeding. 3) You believe that *their* speeding makes *you* immune from a speeding ticket. 4) You get a speeding ticket. All of which results in you frothing at the mouth and insisting that you are being "discriminated" against. You would be an idiot if you attempted that argument in a local court while defending yourself against a speeding fine. You would be an idiot it you attempted that argument at The Hague against war crimes charges. So why, Tim, do you insist on acting like an idiot?
1) Why are they picking on me when I'm innocent! 2) Why are they picking on me when everyone else does it too! A moment's consideration will tell you that Statement (1) is a perfectly valid complaint. Statement (2) is not only invalid, it is also an admission of guilt. SDHD is much too stupid to understand such logic i.e. he really believes that statement (1) the same as statement (2). Indeed, he is so thick that he also believes that "proving" statement (2) is true also "proves" statement (1) i.e. that proving that "everyone else is doing it too! is proof that "Israel is innocent". No, SDHD, it isn't. And it isn't for this simple reason: Claiming that "but, but, but, they are picking on me!" isn't a valid argument WHEN YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE CRIME. It is only a valid agument WHEN YOU ARE INNOCENT. It therefore stands to reason that "proving" that you are being picked on can not be held up as "proof" of your innocence.
TR: "What we are talking about is that all the parties in our example have already been caught by the Radar." Bzzzzzzzzt. Wrong, but thanks for playing. Go back and READ WHAT I WROTE, Tim R. 1) You are speeding. 2) Everyone around you are also speeding. 3) You therefore believe that *their* speeding makes you immune from a speeding ticket. 4) You get a speeding ticket. All of which results in you frothing at the mouth and insisting that you are being "discriminated" against. You, Tim R, are an idiot. You would be an idiot if you attempted that argument in a local court while defending yourself against a speeding fine. You would be an idiot it you attempted that argument at The Hague while defending Israelis against war crimes charges.
Firstly,were you threatening me? I am not the sort to bow down to threats. Be that as it may I am adding this one. Either for you,or anyone else. Something more for what is worth: Can the world expect a reasonable, factual judgment about human rights violations during January?s Gaza War,Cast Lead,? to emerge from the upcoming report of the Goldstone Commission? Indeed, we can expect the opposite. First of all, we may say in general that the UN is a body made up of states, each of which has its own interests,which may in themselves be right or wrong, just or unjust. Yet, secondly, the Goldstone Commission was appointed by the UN?s Human Rights Council, one of the more disreputable, more Orwellian, of UN bodies. Thirdly, the mandate that this,Human Rights Council gave to Goldstone refers only to crimes supposedly committed by Israel, not to crimes committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians and its own people through the use of ?human shields? explicitly forbidden by the international laws of war. This makes the Goldstone Commission rather obviously one-sided. And he still maintains in his righteousness.
if other drivers know you won't bother them even if they kill someone? Are police,judges etc there to ensure peoples safety no matter origine of perpatrator or is it a new jazzyia policy that you try to force on Jews? How would you like being in line for ice cream for hours waiting and waiting while others go straight to the counter knowing they can do that because vendor's only worry is that YOU stay in line and wait for your turn?How would you like that? I see that in your world, yellow David star badges are still alive Johnboy.
Can the world expect a reasonable, factual judgment about human rights violations during January?s Gaza War,Cast Lead,? to emerge from the upcoming report of the Goldstone Commission? Indeed, we can expect the opposite. First of all, we may say in general that the UN is a body made up of states, each of which has its own interests,which may in themselves be right or wrong, just or unjust. Yet, secondly, the Goldstone Commission was appointed by the UN?s Human Rights Council, one of the more disreputable, more Orwellian, of UN bodies. Thirdly, the mandate that this,Human Rights Council gave to Goldstone refers only to crimes supposedly committed by Israel, not to crimes committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians and its own people through the use of ?human shields? explicitly forbidden by the international laws of war. This makes the Goldstone Commission rather obviously one-sided. And he still maintains in his righteousness.
TR: "By the way, a better analogy would be if all the drivers on your road would be caught in a radar trap but the judiciary would choose to book only Israeli/Jewish drivers and let everyone else off." JB: "No, that`S not apt at all," Yes, it is. " precisely because the judiciary that hears a case is not responsible for "booking" the accused to appear before the court." Well, we can apply the analogy to the officer for ticketing the Jew disproportionately, or the court for finding him guilty disproportinately, you silly fool.
"All the cars that are speeding are ALL liable to be pulled over and booked" Except, once again, out of 100 cars, there is 1 Jew. Over 50 of the drivers speed regularly. The Jew has a good reason for speeding, but he gets 90% of the tickets, fool. You suck at analogies. Tim is right, and you are not.
That's you JB....Trying to beat Tim R,is no good judgement. Tim R,can pull out all the stops,run circles around you,that ultimately lands you in the bunker without any rescuers coming YOUR WAY. He is far too astute an adversary,not impressed with your only asset...being your style of writing not all that important for anyone to appreciate it. In the end you lose,HE wins HANDS DOWN.
Changing your name should be not only applicable,but necessary. Judging by your long posts and the comments therein you show exactly where you are coming from.i.e You are not a Cahn,but most probably A KHAN..
You wrote as is your wont.i.e The Rapprochement with Syria...And as the saying goes:"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? And the same mantra goes on. I see no foundation in your argument. Only in your confused mind. And no your kind of peace,whether you appoint the US Slowman as peace mediator will not solve the problem. Alas,alack they have tried without any cogent result. They dither and dither,by their rhetoric and nothing else. Beg to differ on the slowooness of the Mosssad comparing Syria with the first is absurd. The latter are incompetent and disingenuous,acting as proxies of Iran that you forgot in Subject Palestinians: No amount of "slowmen" will deter them to accept your vision. Their only means is are continuous demands that will notbe accepted by Israel. Therefore, G.Wya Bush methinks you are waaay behind the times. I suggest YOU find a good and reliable Slowman and then we can talk business Inshallah. Good luck in your endeavours.
How many civilians am I willing to kill in order to kill one militant? You are asking the wrong person in this instance. The one you should address it is:Haniyeh/Hamas Not us Israelis in the IDF. If they use their civilians as human shields then expect casualties.Also the numbers were exaggerated as you must be aware. You of course with a one sided view point dscarded it altogether. Tough luck old boy--it takes two to get to grips at how those bastards have been REALLY DOING THE BAITING toward Israel and the IDF. Very convenient of you to forgot the abduction of Gilad Shalit..to you it is irrelevant. How many,how many?? As many as possible,you fool. War is war.
"No, that`S not apt at all, precisely because the judiciary that hears a case is not responsible for "booking" the accused to appear before the court"(Johnboy) OK, lets continue your silly little game Johnboy: What we are talking about is that all the parties in our example have already been caught by the Radar. Or are you denying that: - Hamas murdered thousands of Israeli civilians and played Russian roulette with the lives of even more .. - In 2009 alone, at least 1400 Afghan civilians died as a consequence of NATO operations. - That thousands of Chechen civilians died as a consequence of what Russia did in Grozny. Are you denying that Johnboy? I'll just stop there even though there are many other examples ... And your comment was? "The more apt description is that "an example is being made of Israel" ... and so if you are going to start somewhere then stringing up "Israel"(Johnboy) That last sentence is the most telling, let's compare it to another historically famous or should I say infamous method of dealing with some other accused: "behind every lynching, beyond the destruction of the unfortunate victim, is the debasement of citizenship, the crucifixion of justice and democratic government, the prostitution of public officials ..." Funny, Johnboy, those who used to practice this abhorrent form of so called "justice" also excused themselves by claiming that "an example must be made of Negroes and that they need to be strung up" ... OK Johnboy, we do understand you now, your true face has been revealed ...
TR: "By the way, a better analogy would be if all the drivers on your road would be caught in a radar trap but the judiciary would choose to book only Israeli/Jewish drivers and let everyone else off." No, that'S not apt at all, precisely because the judiciary that hears a case is not responsible for "booking" the accused to appear before the court. TR: "In case you don`t know, that is known as discrimination." Logic dictates that if your analogy is not apt, then your conclusion will not be valid.... The more apt description is that "an example is being made of Israel". And rightly so, because Israel is very vocal in its contempt for the rule of law. Or, in short, it is most deserving of being taken down a peg or two "pour encourager les autres", and so if you are going to start somewhere then stringing up "Israel" is the sensible place to start.
... of course you do. "That only SOME drivers are actually pulled over and booked is the enforcement of law, and the fact that NOT ALL SPEEDING DRIVERS are pulled over does not mean that the law only applies to *some* drivers and not to *others*(Johnboy) With cars, there simply aren't enough resources to pull all the drivers over. That's why the law is NOT enforced for all. But wait on, are you suggesting that there are NOT enough resources to investigate NATO's actions in Afghanistan which resulted in around 1400 civilian deaths? Surely the UN is NOT that strapped for resources, surely they could spare another Goldstone, couldn't they, Johnboy? After all, career minded judges who are greedy to advance themselves at all cost are a dime a dozen ... By the way, a better analogy would be if all the drivers on your road would be caught in a radar trap but the judiciary would choose to book only Israeli/Jewish drivers and let everyone else off. In case you don't know, that is known as discrimination. You do know what discrimination is, don't you Johnboy?
Look at that ending: "...what`s sri lanka got to do with goldstone? (my take - the tamils just were not lucky enough to have jews as enemy?)..." (dana) I recognise the dana of old... splendid! But the beginning is lousy! "One Economist to 10 of yours??" It should be worth 100. Or more... I for one read, during a prety long life, easily 1000 various magazines in some 5 languages. After discovering The Economist on one of my flights many years ago, I can't imagine how I could waste so much time with all that trash when compared to this top newspaper. Not to speak of its beautiful English, etc...
TimR: "The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone." The univeral APPLICABILITY of Law is not at all the same as demanding that there be a universal ENFORCEMENT of Law (the latter being your argument in #260). All the cars that are speeding are ALL liable to be pulled over and booked i.e. the laws on speeding are applicable to ALL drivers. That only SOME drivers are actually pulled over and booked is the enforcement of law, and the fact that NOT ALL SPEEDING DRIVERS are pulled over does not mean that the law only applies to *some* drivers and not to *others* (that being, again, your argument in #260). Get it, Tim R? No, of course you don't....
"Tim R fronts the judge, and he rants and he raves that "everyone else was speeding!!!" What johnboy ignores is that there are 100 people who regularly use that road 1 is a Jew. Over 50 of them speed on a regular basis. However, the 1 Jew gets 90% of the tickets.
"Sorry, Tim R, but the guardians of the law are free to use their discretion as and when it is appropriate"(Johnboy) You could NOT be more wrong Johnboy. Here is a bit of introductory law for you: "The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law"(Wikipedia - Rule of Law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law Hint: Your example is flawed JB old boy because with cars, some drivers are lucky enough NOT to get caught but ALL the drivers who ARE caught are subject to the same law. Unless of course there is graft and corruption (a very serious offence under the law) in which case the judges themselves are subject to prosecution. And that was the point of my post JB, that the UN is corrupt because it does NOT treat ALL countries the same way. If it would, then Hamas (for instance) and other culpable parties (those who supply arms to Hamas) would have been indicted by Goldstone 10 years ago and there would NOT have been a need to initiate Operation Cast Led. And yes, other Arab countries, Iran, Russia, China, the USA, Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada and many others too would look over their shoulders for fear of being charged. Because they too are guilty of what Israel is accused of or even worse (some of them) .... Either that, OR it would be overlooked for all ?. Pick your choice JB old boy ?.
"Tim R fronts the judge, and he rants and he raves that "everyone else was speeding!!!" What johnboy ignores is that there are 100 people who regularly use that road 1 is a Jew. Over 50 of them speed on a regular basis. However, the 1 Jew gets 90% of the tickets.
"nice try, but you`re still out in the ozone and grasping. that information would not be jeopardized by an investigative board," Start naming the varying militaries of varying countries which allowed their classified information fall into the hands of investigative boards. You poor slob. First you pretend there is no such classified information, now you pretend it will be guarded. You're quite dishonest in your arguments.
There's a problem when it's the same cop, who hates Jews, and ONLY gives the speeding Jew a ticket, and no one else. In fact, the cop follows the Jew around everywhere and gives him more citations than anyone else, you ludicrous puppet.
SDHD: "Your analogy sucks, no matter how much you try to squeeze the "Jews are wrong," idiocy of yours out of every post." "I will take that as an admission that you had not the faintest idea of the distinction between a "trustee" and a "beneficiary"." I take it you spewed an analogy that simply sucked.
SDHD: "What makes you think `Israel does as it pleases?` " JB: "The Serial Violations By Israel Of International Humanitarian Law Itemized In The Goldstone Report." Did Israel also do as it pleased when it warned Hamas to stop firing rockets? Did Israel do as it pleased when it endured 8 years of attacks without a ground incursion? Did Israel do as it pleased when it offered the Palestinians a state, dipstick? "You claim that there is no evidence that Israel acts as if it can violate int`l law with impunity." How does international law lay out the rules of war against terrorists? "Yet when a report describes Israeli violations those same int`l laws then you simply handwave those reports away AND THEN repeat your claim that there is no evidence that Israel acts as if it can violate int`l law with impunity." Not at all, little rhetorician. The report is severely flawed, and you know it.
Tim R gets in his car and starts speeding down Route 443, way in excess of the speed limit. Tim R noticed that all the other cars are also wildly exceeding the speed limit. Tim R cries "U-Beauty!", knowing that all the other speeding cars protect him from being booked for speeding. Tim R is booked for speeding. Tim R fronts the judge, and he rants and he raves that "everyone else was speeding!!!". The judge tells Tim R that he is should save his breath because that excuse doesn't actually excuse his lawbreaking. Sorry, Tim R, but the guardians of the law are free to use their discretion as and when it is appropriate. It ain't for the ACCUSED to tell 'em when and where they can use that discretionary power; they get to decide that for themselves.
Now a question for you: How many civilians are you willing to kill in order to kill 1 militant? There's a problem, Whiskey. Operation Cast Lead was not a war. It wasn't a battle. There's even a question of whether or not it was a skirmish. So how is it that so many civilians were killed during an exercise in which, by the IDF's own accounts, there was virually no direct engagement by the enemy? Or do you forget the IDF's boasts immediately following its exit from Gaza? In essence, it reported that except for occassional sniper and mortar fire, the Hamas militants had avoided confrontation and had gone into hiding. Another question then follows: How many civilians are you willing to kill, OUTSIDE of the heat of battle, in order to 'maybe' kill 1 militant? Yes I served in the military, and I don't need the Goldstone report to know that something stinks really bad about the whole Gaza operation!
Tim R gets in his car and starts speeding down Route 443, way in excess of the speed limit. Tim R noticed that all the other cars are also wildly exceeding the speed limit. Tim R cries "U-Beauty!", knowing that all the other speeding cars protect him from being booked for speeding. Tim R is booked for speeding. Tim R fronts the judge, and he rants and he raves that "everyone else was speeding!!!". The judge tells Tim R that he is an idiot, and that he should save his breath because that excuse doesn't actually excuse his lawbreaking. Sorry, Tim R, but the guardians of the law are free to use their discretion as and when it is appropriate. It ain't for the ACCUSED to tell 'em when and where they can use that discretionary power; coz they get to decide that for themselves.
There is nothing like a common enemy to unite two sides. Ever heard the expression "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? This is the foundation of the present peace initiative: The US appoints Slowman as peace mediator between Israel and Syria, say. The Syrians want US involvement? Give it to them this way. Over time, the two sides realize whom they are dealing with. They get annoyed to death by his sloooowness and duuuumbness, band together against him, and get rid of him in some joint operation. (Both Mossad and the Syrians are experts in this sort of thing.) There is no bonding like joint war against a common enemy. Peace will follow for sure. You want another peace deal? How about Israel and the Palestinians? Do the same thing, but you will have to go to the Himalayas to catch another Abominable Slowman. There aren't many of those left, so might become a real bottleneck. I suggest you start looking for a few Slowmen right away. Good luck, and Peace be on Israel. Inshallah. P.S. We, the Talkback contributors, are reluctantly willing to deprive ourselves of the services of a censor we grew to love to hate, but only because of the enormity of the mission. May his demise serve as our atonement. Amen.
Now a question for you: How many civilians are you willing to kill in order to kill 1 militant? There's a problem, Whiskey. Operation Cast Lead was not a war. It wasn't a battle. There's even a question of whether or not it was a skirmish. So how is it that so many civilians were killed during an exercise in which, by the IDF's own accounts, there was virually no direct engagement by the enemy? Or do you forget the IDF's boasts immediately following its exit from Gaza? In essence, it reported that except for occassional sniper and mortar fire, the Hamas militants had avoided confrontation and had gone into hiding. Another question then follows: How many civilians are you willing to kill, OUTSIDE of the heat of battle, in order to 'maybe' kill 1 militant? Yes I served in the military, and I don't need the Goldstone report to know that something stinks really bad about the whole damn thing!
And he forget Jackson calling Jews heimies.
Because I know of your antecedents and the hatefilled reasons you have toward the IDF. FART indeed...accusations by Goldstone piffle The man is a megalomaniac who had also made a mess in the Yugoslav incident. Nevermind the IDF,dig a bit deeeper if you DARE. Over and out...dummy
Because Jackson made a derogatory remark on Hymie townies (meaning Jews). Hope you are not one ey? If you are,then you sure belong to the "Hymies"...HA HA HA HA HA EH EH Yah!
I ask myself why someone is able to fear the dark, when he is able to see the lighning power of Jah. And the most times in the night Salomon makes the nights very bright ? We need Goldstein and reading Psalm 78 !
Tell us please:Have you ever served in the military? Short reply will be appreciated. Ye,or nay?
To 10 of mine? is that the power of numbers? read similar takes to the one in The Econ (which I often read too). all of them, including this one engage in what's known as "killing the messenger". They cast aspersions on Goldstone, on the UN, on Gazan victims (blame the victim syndrome) and do their utmost to ignore the facts in the report. You may not be inclined to read the articles I mentioned (especially the Jerom Slater ones). I understand. But I feel confident enough in my take and my own reading of the report itself to have even braved Dersh's polemic (which was so badly written BTW as to harm the mind's solar plexus). The thing is, not one of the critics - including Israel itself and The Econ article - argued the facts of the report. They just cry foul over there being a report at all, just like you. EG, what's sri lanka got to do with goldstone? (my take - the tamils just were not lucky enough to have jews as enemy?) Greetings to you too. Need an antidote yet?
Well done,but some may accuse you of plagiarizing even though you referred the Economist. I was remise in putting my source and here come mini heimi accusing me of plagiarism. The devil,does it matter from which source the article came?Ultimately Goldstones report was deeply flawed and WAS DEBUNKED. I wish people,not forgetting Goldstone to accept the verdict and shut up. CASE CLOSED AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED
It is not a good idea to post such a long post as if you had written it. It is always best to post the original reference or citation from which the post came. Then we can decide whether the original author is giving a credible account of the report or just bshitting. one point. "When he was asked about Hamas intimidation that affected the Mission`s inquiries, he replied that that there was "none whatsoever." whiskey My reading of that is that he was referring to the Goldstone commission itself facing intimidation which they apparently did not. As you say they admit reluctance to speak on the part of Palestinians about 'firing from built up areas'. This is described fully in the report in the 'Launching attacks from within civilian areas and from within or in the immediate vicinity of protected sites' section of the report. good day. Remember don't plagiarize or you'll end up with a reputation like dershowitz!(joke)
"Or should I ask what it is about his post that qualifies it as anti-Semitism?" - Whisky Tango Foxtrot Modern usage. Heimi does not hew to the ultra-right wing viewpoint and thus is de facto antiSemitic. Kids today have not known an age when Jews were not allowed to buy homes in most neighborhoods and the word 'dirty' was used before Jew as a matter of common speech. They have not a clue.
From the same Economist of Sept 17th: "Yet this week?s report (Goldstone's) was deeply flawed. In a conflict where missed opportunities are as common as Qassam rockets, the risk is that both sides will now conclude the wrong thing: Arabs that Israel has just been found guilty; and Israel that it will never get a fair hearing in a hostile world. From the very start, this report had to overcome the taint of prejudice. It was mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, an anti-Israeli outfit notorious for having congratulated Sri Lanka?s government on brutal conduct that led to appalling loss of life among Tamil civilians. Israel refused co-operation. But the mission was headed by a respected international jurist, Richard Goldstone. A Jew himself, Mr Goldstone insisted on scrutinising the conduct of Hamas as well as Israel. There was hope that he might wrestle the inquiry into balance." ...but he didn't...
The Mission investigated Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008 and January 18, 2009. Travers joined the Irish Defense Forces in 1961 and retired after forty years. As the only former officer who belonged to Justice Richard Goldstone's team, he was the senior figure responsible for the military analysis that provided the basis for condemning Israel for war crimes. After following his repeated public appearances with the other mission members in July 2009, and especially in light of his most recent interviews, serious flaws have now become evident in the methodology he followed, in his collection and processing of data, and in the conclusions he draws. In the past, the flaws in the Goldstone report, and especially its lack of balance, have been criticized by the London Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist, but the fundamental problems of its military analysis have not been fully addressed. In the material presented here, this becomes evident in four specific ways: Fundamental Bias against the Israel Defense Forces During the Mission's collection of testimonies from Palestinian psychologists in the Gaza Strip, Travers asked them straight out to explain how Israeli soldiers could kill Palestinian children in front of their parents. In an interview with Middle East Monitor, on February 2, 2010, he asserted that in the past Israeli soldiers had "taken out and deliberately shot" Irish peacekeeping forces in Southern Lebanon. Both of these statements by Travers are completely false. It should be stressed that one of the most vicious and unsubstantiated conclusions in the Goldstone Report is the suggestion that Israel deliberately killed Palestinian civilians. While Travers assumes the worst of intentions on the part of the Israel Defense Forces, he praises Hamas for their cooperation with the Mission. When he was asked about Hamas intimidation that affected the Mission's inquiries, he replied that that there was "none whatsoever." Yet the Goldstone Report itself noted in Paragraph 440 that those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of Palestinian armed groups because of a "fear of reprisals." He rejects the notion that Hamas shielded its forces in the civilian population and does not accept the idea that Israel faced asymmetric warfare.
Worth reading the FT(hardly an anti Israel org) leader on Goldstone. The FT being chock full of Jewish writers.Then look at the FT's own chief of Foreign Affairs Gideon Rachman. "I thought the FT leader on the Goldstone report got it about right. The report on Israel's assault on Gaza is a serious bit of work and it?s fairly desperate to try to discredit it by calling its author a 'self-hating Jew'." G.Rachman. Then the FT Leader: 'Goldstone's Gaza report is balanced' "Much of the criticism centres on methodology with a subtext characteristic of Israel's irredentist right(as in S's favoured NGO webgroup) that since Mr Goldstone is a Jew he must be a traitor. This is, to say the least, disingenuous." http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/425c2276-bcdb-11de-a7ec-00144feab49a.html
Try reading the FT(hardly an anti Israel org) leader on Goldstone. The FT being chock full of Jewish writers.Then look at the FT's own chief of Foreign Affairs Gideon Rachman. "I thought the FT leader on the Goldstone report got it about right. The report on Israel's assault on Gaza is a serious bit of work and it?s fairly desperate to try to discredit it by calling its author a 'self-hating Jew'." G.Rachman. Then the FT Leader: 'Goldstone's Gaza report is balanced' "Much of the criticism centres on methodology with a subtext characteristic of Israel's irredentist right(as in S's favoured NGO webgroup) that since Mr Goldstone is a Jew he must be a traitor. This is, to say the least, disingenuous." http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/425c2276-bcdb-11de-a7ec-00144feab49a.html
...of Hamas, in the previous 8 years that Hamas was committing war crimes against Israeli civilians. They only bothered to cite Hamas AFTER operation Cast Led, go figure ... "If you did then you would have read that the report found that Hamas had violated international human rights law and international humanitarian law both before and during operation cast lead"(Johnboy) By the way, why doesn't the UN investigate what NATO does in Afghanistan. Why isn't there a Goldstone inquiry there? How come 1400 Afghan civilians were accidentally killed in Afghanistan in 2009 alone? I mention 2009 because this was during Obama's rule (not Bush whom you no doubt hate). Obama on the other hand is a nobel peace laureate and even he cannot bring about the end of accidental deaths of civilians in his war. So, how come more is expected of Israel? I think that there is some kind of bias is at work there, don't you Johnboy?
Yes. You have a point about the huge numbers of antisemites in the world including as you say "significant" ones. Sure, Bernard Shaw or Wagner were antisemites ... And of course, there are hundred times of them as there are Jews in the whole world. As about significancy, The Economist (September 17), mentioned by heimi above writes: Israeli policy in Gaza, (Goldstone) argues, was deliberately and systematically to inflict suffering on civilians, rather than Hamas fighters... Israel?s assertions that, in the difficult circumstances of densely populated Gaza, it planned its military operations carefully and with constant legal advice are taken by the report as evidence not of a concern to uphold international law but of a culpable determination to flout it. Israel?s attempts to drop warning leaflets, direct civilians out of danger zones and call daily humanitarian pauses may well have been inadequate, but the report counts them for nought... And so on... Anyway, hello dana!
SDHD: "Your analogy sucks, no matter how much you try to squeeze the "Jews are wrong," idiocy of yours out of every post." I will take that as an admission that you had not the faintest idea of the distinction between a "trustee" and a "beneficiary". Well, at least you know now, so I will suggest that you have finally managed to learn something new. There's always a first time for everthing, heh, SDHD.
SDHD: "What makes you think 'Israel does as it pleases?' " The Serial Violations By Israel Of International Humanitarian Law Itemized In The Goldstone Report. *sheesh* You claim that there is no evidence that Israel acts as if it can violate int'l law with impunity. Yet when a report describes Israeli violations those same int'l laws then you simply handwave those reports away AND THEN repeat your claim that there is no evidence that Israel acts as if it can violate int'l law with impunity. It's like I'm aguing with someone who can deny there is anything in front of him merely BECAUSE he refuses to open his eyes.....
R: "Nobody anywhere in the world has ever accused hamas of 'violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law'. " Soooooo, you never actually read the Goldstone Report, right? If you did then you would have read that the report found that Hamas had violated international human rights law and international humanitarian law both before and during operation cast lead. But, heh, let's not let facts get in the way of an ignorant rant......
"Virtually every significant writer, thinker, blogger and no small number of pundits who are not lobby-shocked into silence has praised the Goldstone Report." You are virtually, no, actually, full of poop. What a lame way to try to lend credibility to the Goldstone report, especially in light of Travers' bigotry.
Or should I ask what it is about his post that qualifies it as anti-Semitism? You must excuse my prying, but being somewhat Semitic myself, and having encountered the real thing on many occasions, I can't help but resent the misuse of the term. Have you never encountered real anti-Semitism, S? Is that why you find it appropriate to use it so completely out of its context? Do you consider that for those of us who have known its ugliness, the impact of its meaning is greatly diminished when its used so lightly?
nice try, but you're still out in the ozone and grasping. that information would not be jeopardized by an investigative board, except in the case of an incident being confirmed; at which point the perpetrators would lose the right of anonymity anyway.
is the Financial Times of the UK, hardly an anti Israel org, which happens to be chock full of Jewish writers. Both the FT's Gideon Rachman(chief foreign affairs). "I thought the FT leader on the Goldstone report got it about right. The report on Israel's assault on Gaza is a serious bit of work and it's fairly desperate to try to discredit it by calling its author a "self-hating Jew"." and the FT leader itself. 'Goldstone?s Gaza report is balanced' http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/425c2276-bcdb-11de-a7ec-00144feab49a.html
Unless you care to include Israel in the same category? The targetting of civilians is unacceptable; no matter WHO's doing it or WHO did it first! Also, if you care to check into it, the incidents in question involved considerably MORE than "farts", and your offhand remark reflects a total disregard for Palestinian life. Consider the likelihood then, that if only 1 in 10 IDF soldiers share your view, the odds are that the alleged crimes DID take place.
is the Financial Times of the UK, hardly an anti Israel org, which happens to be chock full of Jewish writers. Both the FT's Gideon Rachman(chief foreign affairs). "I thought the FT leader on the Goldstone report got it about right. The report on Israel's assault on Gaza is a serious bit of work and it's fairly desperate to try to discredit it by calling its author a "self-hating Jew"." and the FT leader itself. 'Goldstone?s Gaza report is balanced' http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/425c2276-bcdb-11de-a7ec-00144feab49a.html
And being totally stupid about it!
S, since you inquired, I have a few excellent pieces of detailed analysis for you. The best is Prof. Jerome slater's take: Part 1; http://www.jeromeslater.com/2010/01/moshe-halbertal-and-goldstone.html For part 2 check out http://australiansforpalestine.com/slater-moshe-halbertal-and-the-goldstone-report-part-2 An excellent new web site which has put together a documentary and has numerous other references is: http://www.goldstonefacts.org/ Now, I read your goldstone bashing right wingers like dersch. read halbertal's original critique and found it wanting. Now you should read the counter points. Slater did better job than any debunking that - very readable and eminently well written. Thanks heimi for the references. I assume you are aware of the ones I bring up above, especially the new web site. Very nicely done.
Virtually every significant writer, thinker, blogger and no small number of pundits who are not lobby-shocked into silence has praised the Goldstone Report. This includes numerous jewish people in the US, in Europe, in Australia and even in Israel. Halbertal's own past students (8 of them) came out against his nitpicking attempt to discredit it. Today's example is the top article on Silverstein's blog on BB's take:on israel's steady descent into The heart of Darkness http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/02/14/burston-on-gaza-war-as-root-of-all-israeli-evil/ Other excellent analysis of the report could be found in The magnes Zionist, in TPM by eg, M J Rosenberg and countless other locations. The answer to your question is yes, I read the entire report. It is a painstaking piece of work and it's authors clearly went to great length to get Israeli input and to separate palestinian accounts from hamas bias. Besides, the wanton destruction in gaza speaks for itself.
Of course the report is flawed. Just look at the tile: ...with the mandate ?to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.? Nobody anywhere in the world has ever accused hamas of "violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law". On the other hand, some Israeli soldier farts in an arab house and he is immediately accused of "violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law". That is why the repoort is flawed. It set out to demonize Israel from the git go.
...branded Goldstone's report and the Human Watch as utterly anti-Israel!
...the Goldstone Report and the Human Rights Watch... This is after all, one partial but serious organization against another, also partial, except that they are opposite one to another. You call that "kidding"! Well, I don't buy your antisemitism either.
If your assumption of Goldstone's report was not flawed but accurate,then you are using bypartizanship. Even if he did admit Hamas was equally guilty by this admission you,and Godstone are putting a sovereign state on a par to A TERROR ENTITY not recognized by any world countries. Methinks you are stirring the pot and finding NOT FOR THE DEFENCE i.e Israel,but the Prosecuting as well it in one big swoop. Court is now in recess
You seem like a reasonable person, but I disagree. Zunes notes that the majority of Israel's strongest congressional supporters are in "safe" districts anyway. Campaign contributions from the arms industry for continued support to Israel dwarf AIPAC and like groups, according to Zunes, and the Israel lobby appears powerful because its interests often coincide with those who hold "real power" in Washington like such corporations, he notes. The renowned pollster Andrew Kohut, president of Pew Research and known for his deep knowledge of the American electorate, notes that "you can't create the level of support for Israel on the basis of lobbying."
"Israelis today recognize that PM Netanyahu could well safeguard the very survival of Israel." (Stephen) There are also Israelis, mind you, that believe that keeping prisoner a foreign and stateless population - until it becomes a majority demanding equal voting right with the Israelis, is not exactly the best and most effective way to "safeguard the very survival" of their country. "No normal society can flourish in the oppressive conditions generated by the settlement enterprise. The endless war that the settlers are trying to impose on us, which they need like fire needs oxygen, is endangering our future and fanning the flames of a new wave of hatred against Jews in the Diaspora." Prof. Zeev Sternhell, in "Post-Zionist settlement", Haaretz, June 20, 2003. "An Israeli historian, 2008 Israel Prize for Political Science, one of the world's leading experts on Fascism, former head of the Political Science department at the Hebrew U of Jerusalem." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeev_Sternhell
He suggests you read ngo-monitor.orgs analysis of the Goldstone Report. The Economist and Jewish Telegraphic Agency identify NGO Monitor as a pro-Israel non-governmental organization.A hasbara site no less! The organization was founded jointly by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs of Dore Gold fame.Nina Rosenwald, is closely connected too, she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)!!!. One of the most right wing propagandist sites on Israel Arab issues known. LOL! In an op-ed published by Forward, Leonard Fein, a former Professor of Politics and Klutznick Professor of Contemporary Jewish Studies at Brandeis University, takes issue with NGO Monitor's statement that Human Rights Watch (HRW) places ?extreme emphasis on critical assessments of Israel? and has issued more reports about HRW than on any other of the 75 NGOs it concerns itself with. In his article, Leonard Fein writes that HRW has devoted more attention to five other nations in the region Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Turkey and Iran than they have to Israel; but that, despite extensive correspondence, Mr Steinberg(who has written on Goldstone report) has failed to correct the "misleading" statement about HRW on the NGO Watch website. See here. http://www.forward.com/articles/3517/ In short a far right wing Israel hasbara site should be studied before your own response to the talk back!!! What S is apparently unaware of is that Goldstone has already debated Dore Gold last June and frankly dealt with all the duplicitous nonsense that Gold could throw his way.
No it was not an analogy. I simply meant to say argument. I never read the post you responded to simply picked a post or two at random. I think the arguments are unnecessarily polarized. The lobby is hardly unimportant and Chomsky simply overstates his case. That said, he makes a valid point when he states that corporate influences are greater and that they both argue the same policy on Israel. This doesn't diminish the lobbys influence. No doubt Israel would have support of the majority in Congress regardless, but the near 100% reflexive support at every juncture is not normal nor is the lobby irrelevant to this. Your argument about Bush is weak. The Jews are not voting primarily on Israel issues. I already said if both candidates fall over themselves to assert pro Israel stances then the decision goes to other issues like the economy on which Jews are traditionally liberal.If Kucinich or Nader(both economic liberals) by some miracle stood for election as Democratic candidates both would do so without Jewish support. Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs, writes Is¬raeli journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own." The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Then you should see this about the largest single private benefactor to US politicians. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/business/yourmoney/05sab.html?_r=1 Then consider the words of Gershon Gorenburg. "If a member of the US congress made a similar proposal,(to recall the US ambassador to Israel) the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) would almost certainly encourage donations to his opponent in Novembers election." "Judging from published reports and Washington sources, almost all of whom insist on speaking anonymously on this subject,a proper study would conclude that Aipac has convinced members of congress that they can boost their campaign donations if they favour aid and arms for Israel. It would, further, almost certainly point out that politicians are afraid to add conditions to that aid, such as reducing aid by the amount that Israel spends on settlements in the occupied territories." http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/04/aliberalisraellobby/
"I assume Burston read the report. If so, he owes it to us, the readers who followed his narrative, to point out just where those "flaws" are. We await." (dana) It is YOU who owe us just how do you know his narrative (have you read it?) and sources, based on Hamas facts, Hamas information and Hamas truth, are true and properly checked and counterchecked in a lawful manner, when he himself said that all this needs to be checked further in a court of law. In any case, first read the following: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/_house_of_cards_ngos_and_the_goldstone_report and then come back to us ...
Bradley Burston's two articles on Fear of Peace should have been published in the Hebrew print edition as well. These are truths that the public must fact up to. Haaretz does a disservice by keeping this op-eds in the online English edition.
No it was not an analogy. I simply meant to say argument. I never read the post you responded to simply picked a post or two at random. I think the arguments are unnecessarily polarized. The lobby is hardly unimportant and Chomsky simply overstates his case. That said, he makes a valid point when he states that corporate influences are greater and that they both argue the same policy on Israel. This doesn't diminish the lobbys influence. No doubt Israel would have support of the majority in Congress regardless, but the near 100% reflexive support at every juncture is not normal nor is the lobby irrelevant to this. Your argument about Bush is weak. The Jews are not voting primarily on Israel issues. I already said if both candidates fall over themselves to assert pro Israel stances then the decision goes to other issues like the economy on which Jews are traditionally liberal.If Kucinich or Nader(both economic liberals) by some miracle stood for election as Democratic candidates both would do so without Jewish support. Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs, writes Is¬raeli journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own." The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Then you should see this about the largest single private benefactor to US politicians. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/business/yourmoney/05sab.html?_r=1 Then consider the words of Gershon Gorenburg. "If a member of the US congress made a similar proposal,(to recall the US ambassador to Israel) the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) would almost certainly encourage donations to his opponent in Novembers election." "Judging from published reports and Washington sources, almost all of whom insist on speaking anonymously on this subject,a proper study would conclude that Aipac has convinced members of congress that they can boost their campaign donations if they favour aid and arms for Israel. It would, further, almost certainly point out that politicians are afraid to add conditions to that aid, such as reducing aid by the amount that Israel spends on settlements in the occupied territories." http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/04/aliberalisraellobby/
"I assume Burston read the report. If so, he owes it to us, the readers who followed his narrative, to point out just where those "flaws" are. We await." (dana) It is YOU who owe us just how do you know his narrative (have you read it?) and sources, based on Hamas facts, Hamas information and Hamas truth, are true and properly checked and counterchecked in a lawful manner, when he himself said that all this needs to be checked further in a court of law. In any case, first read the following: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/_house_of_cards_ngos_and_the_goldstone_report and then come back to us ...
No it was not an analogy. I simply meant to say argument. I never read the post you responded to simply picked a post or two at random. I think the arguments are unnecessarily polarized. The lobby is hardly unimportant and Chomsky simply overstates his case. That said, he makes a valid point when he states that corporate influences are greater and that they both argue the same policy on Israel. This doesn't diminish the lobbys influence. No doubt Israel would have support of the majority in Congress regardless, but the near 100% reflexive support at every juncture is not normal nor is the lobby irrelevant to this. Your argument about Bush is weak. The Jews are not voting primarily on Israel issues. I already said if both candidates fall over themselves to assert pro Israel stances then the decision goes to other issues like the economy on which Jews are traditionally liberal.If Kucinich or Nader(both economic liberals) by some miracle stood for election as Democratic candidates both would do so without Jewish support. Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs, writes Is¬raeli journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own." The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Then you should see this about the largest single private benefactor to US politicians. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/business/yourmoney/05sab.html?_r=1 Then consider the words of Gershon Gorenburg. "If a member of the US congress made a similar proposal,(to recall the US ambassador to Israel) the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) would almost certainly encourage donations to his opponent in Novembers election." "Judging from published reports and Washington sources?almost all of whom insist on speaking anonymously on this subject,a proper study would conclude that Aipac has convinced members of congress that they can boost their campaign donations if they favour aid and arms for Israel. It would, further, almost certainly point out that politicians are afraid to add conditions to that aid?such as reducing aid by the amount that Israel spends on settlements in the occupied territories." http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/04/aliberalisraellobby/
"Burston here joins the delegitimizers of Israel ... " (Shalom Freedman) When Glenn Beck, of Fox News, was accusing Pres. B. Obama of having "a deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture", of leading "a government full of heroin pushers vampires", of being a racist, www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNIQG7WXpSM he was not joining the delegitimizers of his country. Burston here does not join the delegitimizers of Israel. Like it or not, criticising the leaders of his country is the most basic right of every citizen of a democratic country, stupid, surely when he believes that they are leading it right to disaster. Shalom Freedman, shame on you.
repeating the matra of a "deeply flawed report" while providing not one solid reason why it so is getting old. Johnboy above took this 'argument" apart, showing it for the ad-hominem that it is. I believe, based on this article, that people like know the report is as honest and detailed as it could be, based on the available information. BB thinks that it makes a good mirror to hold up to the reality of Israel's actions in Gaza (where was a "Goldstone" report on lebanon, BTW?). But even he can't bring himself to believe the tragic truth: that the wanton destruction in Gaza and the near 1000's of dead and maimed children. women and men were indeed deliberately caused, part of a policy. As "Dahiya" doctrine implies, such attitude reflects a shocking disregard for lives not jewish, a failing that holds sway over the majority of Israelis. I assume Burston read the report. If so, he owes it to us, the readers who followed his narrative, to point out just where those "flaws" are. We await.
...that does not absolve Goldstone (who amplified his findings, often incorrect, with vicious condemnation of Israel and Israelis) from severe criticism...
"SDHD, Cipora Julianna Kohn et al, feel free to disprove anything I`ve written with ACTUAL citations from reputable sites. " You seem to be unable to allow this simple concept to penetrate that thickness between your ears... No one is blathering about the '48 borders, no matter how much you'd like them to.
"you`re response says it all. you have no answer, because everyone, including you, KNOWS there is only ONE reason the idf fears independent scrutiny of its operation in gaza; and it has NOTHING to do with security." You mean, you can't imagine why, an army, the names of its troops, the way they deployed them, etc. are classified? I asked you, what's your IQ?
"Nobody denies ANYONE a right to "self-defense". What I am pointing out is that shouting "defense! defense! defense!" does not then give Israel carte blanche to do as it pleases." What makes you think "Israel does as it pleases?" You think the Palestinians don't do as "they please"? Are they automatons being controlled by others? If they don't want Israel defending itself, quit attacking, oaf.
"The preamble of the Mandate says that BRITAIN was appointed as the trustee of Palestine." Your analogy sucks, no matter how much you try to squeeze the "Jews are wrong," idiocy of yours out of every post.
Cipora Julianna Kohn:"international law, if it is to be respected and accepted, cannot be based on deeply flawed reports written by so-called international jurists who do not abide by rules of evidence and who do not observe the applicable laws." What applicable laws qualifies you Cipora to cast judgement on the report other than your usual postings.
Thank you Mr. Burston for your thoughtful report and thank you Ha Aretz for deleting the rude and impolite comments.Michael,a 3 time visitor to Israel and long time friend of Israel.
No it was not an analogy. I simply meant to say argument. I never read the post you responded to simply picked a post or two at random. I think the arguments are unnecessarily polarized. The lobby is hardly unimportant and Chomsky simply overstates his case. That said, he makes a valid point when he states that corporate influences are greater and that they both argue the same policy on Israel. This doesn't diminish the lobbys influence. No doubt Israel would have support of the majority in Congress regardless, but the near 100% reflexive support at every juncture is not normal nor is the lobby irrelevant to this. Your argument about Bush is weak. The Jews are not voting primarily on Israel issues. I already said if both candidates fall over themselves to assert pro Israel stances then the decision goes to other issues like the economy on which Jews are traditionally liberal.If Kucinich or Nader(both economic liberals) by some miracle stood for election as Democratic candidates both would do so without Jewish support. Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs, writes Is¬raeli journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own." The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Then you should see this about the largest single private benefactor to US politicians. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/business/yourmoney/05sab.html?_r=1 Then consider the words of Gershon Gorenburg. "If a member of the US congress made a similar proposal,(to recall the US ambassador to Israel) the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) would almost certainly encourage donations to his opponent in Novembers election." "Judging from published reports and Washington sources?almost all of whom insist on speaking anonymously on this subject,a proper study would conclude that Aipac has convinced members of congress that they can boost their campaign donations if they favour aid and arms for Israel. It would, further, almost certainly point out that politicians are afraid to add conditions to that aid?such as reducing aid by the amount that Israel spends on settlements in the occupied territories." http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/04/aliberalisraellobby/
I wish,I wish I might? No you are just Whistling in the dark fellow.Although your post s rather good,but oblique. So,I still say: I wish I may, I wish I might, Have this wish I wish tonight Now I feel better.
We do know the truth - that Israel fought a defensive war strictly limited at halting aggression against its citizens and its territory. It did not reoccupy Gaza. It did not try to run the Palestinians' lives. All of these facts are ignored by Goldstone, by Burston and by Haaretz. Other nations have done far worse. Yet alone in the annals of mankind, Israel stands condemned for wanting to defend itself. Those who sanction Israel in the inrernational institutions have no right to pass moral let alone legal judgment upon the Jewish State.
Israel's leftists know full well what Hamas is. They know full well why the Goldstone Report was written. And yet they defend it! If you imply that Israel is morally cupable of non-existent crimes, you lose the high ground in the court of public opinion. And this is exactly what has been happening today.
Dear Bradley, I do not know if you are interested but I have a vastly different viewpoint of the Goldstone thing. We are fighting for our existence (yes, just view the long term). The pedestal of superior morals for the jews versus other people that you are going along with has been so destructive to us and I know no-one who thinks we are superior. To hold yourself to a higher standard is admirable, but Goldstoning your people is something quite different. Same thing in the USA, the folks who have never had a physical fight in their lives, who have been defended by the GI's and officers decade after decade have their heads in the clouds, they havent a clue about self defense and their friends are not maimed and dead. The world is suffocating and burning around us, (in case some havent noticed,) I mean for G-d sake it is five minutes to midnight, and you are proposing that Israel should respect the UN and facilitate more harassment of Israel and the USA by the g-Report".
What happen in Gaza was NOT a war ! What happen in Gaza was an operation in response to cowardly terrorists. If you expect terrorists will abide by the law; you head needs to be examine ! That was Goldstone mistake.
"The reports says that Israel`s policy in Operation Cast Lead was to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible" Care to provide us with an actual quote? Your points #5 and #6 don't even refer to the Goldstone Report so how can you describe them as "legitimate criticisms"?
One of the authors in the goldstone report said that only two rockets hit Israël before the invasion. The mindset is clear: they were out to hurt Israël's standing. The problem is how to recover it without kowtowing
Goldstone has spoken what he believes. There are substantial documented videos, photos and testimonies upon which he has based his judgement. He was not alone. Both Israel and the USA need Goldstone. To demonize Goldstone demonstrates the callous method these two countries have for avoiding admissions of lapses in either leadership, chain of command or failed policies. Truth is a critical part of our heritage rather than the rationalization of violent acts that prevails.
Burston here joins the delegitimizers of Israel and says Israel's policy is the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of Palestinian society. He does not consider the possibility that Israel's policy is defending its own citizens against the Jihadists who claimed that they would cause Israel tens of thousands of casualties. The terrorists implanted in civilian facilities are responsible for the damage to civilian structures. Burston is not concerned with all the Israeli efforts to warn civilians, to prevent their injury. Shame on you Mr. Burston. Also you are inaccurate on what Dershowitz actually said. -
Nice try - you left out Obama
Give my regards to Edith, Gloria and Michael
It amazes me, though I suppose it shouldn't at this point, that I respond to a poster using the most blatantly bigoted message about excessive Jewish influence through money (oh, right, votes too now), with no acknowledgement of any other factors affecting US policy on Israel (of course it is the Jews who pull the strings, let's IGNORE the influence of American corporate interests, for ecample, on ME policy, including Israel, an influence Chomsky documents and concludes vastly exceeds that of Jewish organizations on policy) and the responses I get completely ignore the bigotry to which I responded and offer instead more unsupported statements about excessive Jewish influenceinstead.
First, my statement about voting was not an analogy. Second, I said it was a piece of evidence to be considered, along with evidence, for example, that the influence of Jewish organizations in affecting elections in which Israel is an issue is overstated (see Miller, Much Too Promised Land). Moreover, if Jews are so excrssively focused on Israel in their voting, they would certainly have voted in greater percentages for Bush, the proven quantity, rather than less than other Americans. Third, Walt and Mearsheimer themselves point out the Israel Lobby is not properly characterized as a Jewish Lobby, so to point to "Jewish money/votes" alone is obvious bigotry.
Link? thx Meanwhile https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/files-of-jewish-interest.html
S, a possible explanation for Israel's ill-advised refusal to allow Goldstone into Sderot, was the intention to delegitimize him, and in so doing delegitimize the report a priori. Unfortunately this manouever boomeranged back onto us.
... which sums his entire article? Not really. Make just a small effort... But your post was very nice... Shavua Tov. S
At least a gallstone you can have removed.
Your statement regarding Bush and the Jewish vote is not very convincing. Neither Kerry nor Gore could be regarded as anything other than solidly pro Israel.Were a candidate like Kucinich or Nader presented to the Florida and NY electorates then you would see the Jewish vote emerge as a force. Meantime, Presidential, Senatorial and Congressional races in those States are all heavily influenced by the candidates position on support for Israel. If both candidates are pro Israel then the Jewish vote will simply tend democratic like it usually does. Kerry and Gore were not that dumb.
s first. before posting your usual garbage why not not look up the british mandate records of arab terrorism and the british armies responses ! start in 1920 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As with the other Olmert war, "The Second Lebanon War" (1986), the operation was not planned in full in advance. FM Livni testified that she believed the Lebanon War was meant to be only a large but short operation. In the Gaza case, DM Barak wanted to stop the operation after a few days but Olmert insisted on dragging it on and on (for 3 weeks). Lack of planning also implies lack of goals that are achievable, and when they are achieved the operation ends. Apparently, both operations were an expression of anger without much thought given to consequences. In the Gaza case, all the reasonable and legal targets were achieved after days. But the driving anger was not satisfied, and this led to the acceptance of more and more questionable targets that constituted war crime. As the Talmud says, "Once permission is given to the Destroyer, he no longer distinguished between the righteous and the evil", or in the language of Proverbs "Without a vision, the people go wild" (not "perish").
It takes one to know one eh Michael? As though you don't indulge in a surreptitious way just the same. But then you are not a Jew,whereas SDHD is. And has to point it out as forcefully as he can.Rudeness?I haven't seen any rude remarks by SDHD. If the truth hurts,then swallow it.It will do you the world of good.I mean someone has to put you where you belong don't you think? You are here constantly making remarks against Israel.Are we supposed to accept it without any counter attacks against your ilk? LOL
http://tinyurl.com/y8ewves/myths-mis-conceptions-propaganda/#who-is-being-wiped-off-the-map ..then reconsider why they might wish to be rid of their neighbour. "Gaza threatened to eliminate Israel" Israel has been wiping the Palestinians 'off the map' for the last 61/62 years. Hamas/Gaza are responding. "The people elected their government and are responsible for its actions" Israeli's haven't voted for 61 years? "They are holding an Israeli soldier" One POW vs THOUSANDS of Palestinian CIVILIANS. " They shot rockets into Israel for years" What would you do if YOU were being wiped off the map? "What more justifiction does one need to attack and eliminate such a foe and eliminate him for good, no matter what it takes? " A) "justifiction" a typo? B) Actually being 'wiped off the map'..What more justification would YOU need? C) Hamas come from the people, you'd have to kill them all. It is illegal and it is illegal to even ".. declare that no quarter will be given;"
The man has caused us nothing but misery,and to think B.Burston is sympathetic toward him, not to mention castigating the war against the terror entity in Gaza is absurd/unacceptable. Please Bradley think before uttering such rot. Israel had to defend itself,Goldston is a maniac who has not forgiven the accusations against him.His report was totally flawed and has been debunked. We have had to read and digest what he has written which was A ONE WAY HYPOTHESIS.And now having had enough we need a purgative to cleanse our selves.
Yes, and it is "well known" (to American racists) that African Americans are naturally prone to crime because of the astonishing fact that one in nine young African Americans is behind bars (NY Times, 2-28-09). And those American racists are not going to bother to consider all the evidence (like racism in our justice system) before generalizing about African Americans any more than you are going to in generalizing about American Jews (like the fact that American Jews voted against the younger President Bush, perhaps the most pro-Israel president in American history, in far higher percentages than the rest of the American populace in both elections).
1) Please point it out in the report...thx 2) Israel didn't bother to give any evidence. 3) Put up the complete Interview transcripts..thx "4) Goldstone was protected by Hamas security guards during witness testimonies" Source..thx "5) Few people in both pro- and anti-Israel camps have read the report in its entirety, and yet they use it to defend their positions." You've made claims that are NOT in the report. Have you read it? "6) The interim IDF report has dispelled many of the individual examples of so-called Israel "war crimes." " The accused investigates itself. Would you agree to a verdict by Hamas on Hamas? Unless you fulfill the requests, you have no 'legitimate criticisms"
Gaza threatened to eliminate Israel. The people elected their government and are responsible for its actions. They are holding an Israeli soldier. They shot rockets into Israel for years. What more justifiction does one need to attack and eliminate such a foe and eliminate him for good, no matter what it takes? Israel should have finished the job while they were at it and not withdrawn prematurely. How come there are so many Chamberlain like appeasers in Israel? H L Wipprecht
1) The reports says that Israel's policy in Operation Cast Lead was to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible; however, Goldstone now denies the report says this in interviews 2) The report employs different criteria in assessing evidence against Israel and Hamas. It is far more willing to draw adverse inferences of intentionality from Israeli conduct and statements than from comparable Palestinian conduct and statements. 3) Members of Goldstone's fact-finding committee had already spoken of Israel's guilt prior to the investigations. 4) Goldstone was protected by Hamas security guards during witness testimonies, and it's idiotic to say that these interviews are completely unbiased. 5) Few people in both pro- and anti-Israel camps have read the report in its entirety, and yet they use it to defend their positions. 6) The interim IDF report has dispelled many of the individual examples of so-called Israel "war crimes." I could go on.
DELETED BY MODERATOR
#138 Er Taiwan is a State. It is not a sovereignty. #140 A) Name any M Eastern country I 'support' B) Name the countries that recognize Israel by '1967' lines. Show their recognition/source. C) The '67 lines are an ARMISTICE line, not borders. D) Politicians are taking the armistice lines as a starting point. They are not borders between Israel and the non-state entity of Palestine. Israel has NEVER legally annexed any territories. #144 /BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY/ (without reservation) /Provisional Government of Israel May 15, 1948 "I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947"/ #153 UNSC Res 1860 //Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967../
As so often, you entirely missed the point. "A deeply flawed report for a deeply flawed country. A country which will not, and cannot, begin to heal itself, repair itself, right itself, unless it faces with honesty and courage the issues and allegations raised by the report." (Bradley Burston) Deeply flawed, not shoddy.
"I have the right to protect [my child]." (Ingrid) Who said you haven't ? "Collective punishment of a civilian population" will never protect anyone. This is Burston's point. " ... a masochistic approach to anything that criticizes Israel." (Ingrid) Learn to distinguish between Israel and those who govern it. And while you are at it, also to differentiate between Israel (the UN state member) and the Jewish people. Here is a good starting point: "I regard the current situation as nothing less than tragic. It is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long run with our deepest ideals. There is no question that this kind of prolonged conflict, together with the absence of hope, generates hatreds and insensitivities that in the long run are corrupting to a culture." Britain's chief rabbi, Professor Jonathan Sacks, as quoted by J. Freedland, August 27, 2002, in "Israel set on tragic path, says chief rabbi" www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,781113,00.html
Dear Editor: You working hard to make Haaretz very interesting, popular and professional. Maybe something else very good. Allow me to respond to one your headline: "Israel needs Goldstone". How about another headline: "Israel needs Goldstone like healthy fellow needs traumatic surgery from violent lunatic". PLease be careful to select information for Haaretz. Sincerely, Vladimir
hey CJ, newsflash, we left gaza!!!! it is not occupied and wasn't before the gaza war. yet what did we get in return after forcibly evicting our own citizens???? missiles and more missiles, not fired at military targets but at civilians. what should israel have done? let's say sydney gets attacked like israel did, let's say sydney's civilians are terrorized by thousands of missiles falling in schoolyards, on homes, in the streets and highways? what would your army have done??? walk a mile in our shoes and than run off at the mouth with all your self-righteous loathing.
Bradley, It's your type of comments which fuel the stupidity of operations like cast iron. TIME TO GROW UP.
List of non-sovereign nations From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Depending on the context the the term non-sovereign nation, it could mean: Current List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, representing those nations which are currently part of a transnational state but would like to secede from the state. List of unrecognized states, representing those states which have declared independence, but whose independence has not been recognised by the majority of the international community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_states
any pity for your fellow countrymen in Shderot , that WERE UNDER BOBMARDMENT for over 6 years? Where were you? You show now a lot of compasion for the people in Gaza ; Why didn't you show a similar compassion for your Jewish fellows in Shderot and Kibutim in the south? Why? Are you hating your Judaism so much?
...Shabbat shalom. E
The only part of this well written piece I do not agree with is the statement of it being a war. It was not a war in any shape or form; it was an over the top attack on a civilian ghetto equal to what happen 70 years ago in Warsaw. I know the comparison is dangerous because of the army that was involved at the time, but was not the REACTION of the IDF the same. Israel?s far right/religious groups have caused so much distrust and violence in the region. Now Israel really needs to lift the blockade allow aid into Gaza. They could undermine Hamas via the really good guy?s route instead of the failed bully/thug method. No question of that happening with these narrow minded bigoted rightwing fools in charge. Poor Israel it?s a crying shame you?ve allowed these people to take control of your country.
Well, it says so in the Palestinian Charter. Read it and work it out for yourself.
All you bring to the table is denial and insults, not very convincing. Taiwan is a state. It isn't a Sovereign state. It's a non-Sovereign state. I.e., a state that has not made a declaration of sovereignty. Israeli declaration //... BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY..// (res 181, no reservation) //.. MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947..// I 'spew'? Insult? Please point out where...thx SDHD, Cipora Julianna Kohn et al, feel free to disprove anything I've written with ACTUAL citations from reputable sites. I.e., Israeli Govt, Knesset, UN, UNSC, Yale Law or similar. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y (no moderation, free!)
Hear, hear, some truths plain and straight.
...which your prejudices agree with, but not the whole picture which actually shows a very balanced analysis...Read that: "The Goldstone Report is, indeed, deeply flawed. But it is exactly what Israel needs. A deeply flawed report for a deeply flawed country." Now you understand how one-sided all your posts are regarding Goldstone? Of course not......It is NOT HE who is right! It is the country who is wrong!
100% correct......wonderfully stated Ingrid.
Three simple questions one with your gigantic intellect ought be able to answer in a flash... On what date did Israel legally annex the territories it had illegally acquired by war by 1949/50? Why did the UNSC condemn Israel's illegal annexation of East Jerusalem? Why in UNSC res 242 does it say 'It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war'? -------- Taiwan is a 'state', it's not a 'sovereign state' (non-sovereign). TransJordan was also 'state' til 1946. In 1946 it became a 'sovereign state'.
//the Provisional Government of Israel ..May 15, 1948 "..I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law...." ["On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired... AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY "] Israel has never legally annexed any extra territory
you're response says it all. you have no answer, because everyone, including you, KNOWS there is only ONE reason the idf fears independent scrutiny of its operation in gaza; and it has NOTHING to do with security.
my take on what I'm reading here and what I've learned before now, is that the Jews knew they were in the wrong (over kill), therefore refused to cooperate with Goldstone, who was chosen because he was a respected member fo the Jewish community and who loves Israel, and when you didn't like what he had to say even though he was extremely fair resorted to smears of anti-semitism...Jews also know they're wrong taking Palestinian land by illegal evictions and razing of homes and building walls across it separating whole communities from their fields and groves not to mention schools and you burn mosques- on their land...now that you've encroached on their land you expect them to accept peace on your terms, wherein you get to keep said land and you choke Gaza and the West Bank... you target their water treatment plants or flood them...you've ruined their fields...and yet you claim that that's what is happening to you...and yes I've sent the videos also of a Nobel Laureate being shot for no reason and the concession stands for the "spectators" on the borders like it's a sport....you people have no shame
The Left needs Goldstone....because it is the only refuge left for the "Left"
to realize that SDHD is in fact a mild mannered and cultivated nice fella who can be seen as a true toddler comparing to Labhras insults and verbal abuses of other posters.(Without mentioning Aussie Marilyn's 'you cretin' posts.) Have you ever seen Peter SM complaining about Labhras rude insults? Your whining about SDHD behavior is a weak pretext to avoid the obvious.That you are unable to refute his arguments. Well done SDHD ;-)
Why not try putting your argument without the abuse? I,m wondering about SDHD (funny how **** Head comes to mind} Robbo
SDHD: "So, there were no rockets or terror attacks against Israel, right dopey?" *sigh* Nobody denies ANYONE a right to "self-defense". What I am pointing out is that shouting "defense! defense! defense!" does not then give Israel carte blanche to do as it pleases. That is the entire point behind Int'l Humanitarian Law i.e. it sets limits upon what is permissible (and what is Going Too Far) during warfare. Israel's argument appears to be that shouting "defense! defense! defense!" sweeps Int'l Humanitarian Law to one side, and that is untrue i.e. those laws apply to BOTH sides in a conflict, irrespective of who is "attacking" or who is "defending". After all, those two roles can - and often do - reverse during the course of a conflict. You are incapable of understanding that because, apparently, zionists are trained from birth (or, at least, at the yeshiva) not to understand that.
SDHD: "BOTH Jews AND Arabs were the trustees in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, genius." !!!!! The preamble of the Mandate says that BRITAIN was appointed as the trustee of Palestine. SDHD: "Your posts pretend the trustees were solely the Arabs." !!!!!! The trustee was called the "Mandatory", and the allied powers appointed "the United Kingdom" to that position. SDHD: "You do know that the Arabs rejected the UN`s recommendation for a split along ethnic lines" Two beneficiaries hear the decision of the trustee to apportion the assets *thus* and *so* One of them leaps up and shouts "Nooooooo! That bitch shouldn't get any! It's mine! Mine! All Mine!". Q: Does that outburst have any effect? A: No, because the beneficiaries don't get a say in the decision. Only the trustee does. Q: But does that beneficiary now lose her share? A: No, because the decision of the trustee is final i.e. the assets have to be split *thus* and *so*.
CJK: "there is no such thing as a 'non-sovereign state.' " Nonsense: states can federate, Cipora, and even after federation those states still exist. But sovereignty rests with the federation, not with the states that make up that federation i.e. each state within that federation is a "non-sovereign state". And, let's face it, you don't want to look too closely at the status of Taiwan i.e. it has NEVER declared independence from "China", yet the PRC (not the ROC) is the internationally recognized sovereign of "China". Nor, indeed, does the "sovereign status" of Somaliland and/or North Cyprus stand up to much scrutiny.
I suppose you would feel differently if you lived in Gaza rather than in San Diego. I assume that you have dual citizenship, and think that you have dual "loyalty," that is to the US and to Israel. Give me the reason that the piddly rockets have kept coming? Could it be the continued occupation of someone else's land? Your loyalties are dangerous to the US and you must make a choice. Can't have it both ways.
How about a Polish Jew?
List of non-sovereign nations From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Depending on the context the the term non-sovereign nation, it could mean: Current List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, representing those nations which are currently part of a transnational state but would like to secede from the state. List of unrecognized states, representing those states which have declared independence, but whose independence has not been recognised by the majority of the international community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_states
Left wings and people like Goldstone only have themselves to blame for high number of Palestinians death. If the People like Goldstone did cry every time human shield got killed and threat lawsuit. Hamas would not us human shields they have got to point talk civilions into stand on building IAF going to bomb. Israel army also becoming more right wing. Fact 50% Israel new offens are religous zionists say a lot. Also the fact many left jews get scare out joining army combat units over law suits and threat be call war crimeals. So Israel militry is becoming too right wing. Turn Israel real jews states under JEws law and goes after people like Goldstone
stop israeli occupation, stop israeli oppression, let palestinians live freely in the designated palestinian territories without the illegal presence of the israeli settlers.
a Chinese Jew!
The refugees want to return to their homes lost in 1948, and since. Though some Israelis would have it otherwise, UN resolutions call for the return of both. Important national and international bodies rule that this should be so. Israel has only three choices. With their approval, absorb all residents and refugees as equal citizens. Or with the approval of all residents and refugees, agree to and seal by treaty the borders of two separate and sovereign states. Or continue this occupation which discredits all of us.
List of non-sovereign nations From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Depending on the context the the term non-sovereign nation, it could mean: Current List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, representing those nations which are currently part of a transnational state but would like to secede from the state. List of unrecognized states, representing those states which have declared independence, but whose independence has not been recognised by the majority of the international community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_states
"I have the right to protect [my child]." (Ingrid) Who said you haven't ? "Collective punishment of a civilian population" will never protect anyone. This is Burston's point. " ... a masochistic approach to anything that criticizes Israel." (Ingrid) Learn to distinguish between Israel and those who govern it. And while you are at it, also to differentiate between Israel (the UN state member) and the Jewish people. Here is a good starting point: "I regard the current situation as nothing less than tragic. It is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long run with our deepest ideals. There is no question that this kind of prolonged conflict, together with the absence of hope, generates hatreds and insensitivities that in the long run are corrupting to a culture." Britain's chief rabbi, Professor Jonathan Sacks, as quoted by J. Freedland, August 27, 2002, in "Israel set on tragic path, says chief rabbi" www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,781113,00.html
you're response says it all. you have no answer, because everyone, including you, KNOWS there is only ONE reason the idf fears independent scrutiny of its operation in gaza; and it has NOTHING to do with security.
As so often, you entirely missed the point. "A deeply flawed report for a deeply flawed country. A country which will not, and cannot, begin to heal itself, repair itself, right itself, unless it faces with honesty and courage the issues and allegations raised by the report." (Bradley Burston) Deeply flawed, not shoddy.
... Bradley speaks with pain, Natallie with glee...
There you go SDHD. Happy to talk to you the way you prefer to talk. I don't sppose Haaretz will publish this, since you seem to be the only one with an invective licence, but wwe'll see. By the way, meant to ask you - how do you realistically see peace coming between Pals and Israelis? Do you think Israel's done the Pals any wrong? What's wrong with something like the Geneva plan, pre-1967 borders with minor 1 for 1 swaps and a token return of 100,000 Pals and compensation for the rest, plus for Jews forced out of Arab countries?
You coveniently forgot the most important part: UN Res 181: C. DECLARATION A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses: General Provision The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them. THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL: THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel. Maybe you should read Res 181 before making comments about orders. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/UN+General+Assembly+Resolution+181.htm
Don, we're neighbors. I'm in Northbrook. Why are you equating everyone's disgust with Israel with wanting to eliminate all the Jews from the entire world. I don't believe I've read one posting stating the entire annihilation of the Jews. People like you always jump to conclusions and right into the anti-semite bandwagon. People are having issues with Israel, not Jews the world over. Get over it...
r cummings wrote: "The USA will save Israel as usual, because of Jewish money/votes." DZ: "Is this a part of legitimate cricism of Israel, as is so often claimed, or is this antisemitism under the pretense of legitimate criticism of Israel? If this is not antisemitism, what, in your view, WOULD be?" Will the REAL cummings reveal himself? With that statement, he most certainly did. The U.S. is the only nation I can think of, which has a sizable Jewish, minority, and has never, EVER systematically subjected them to any sort of abuse and/or discrimination. I do not believe the same can be said for any country in the Middle East or Europe.
The Dahiya doctrine is a very brutual tactic in asymetrical warfare; and this doctrine attracts criticism and valid criticism from foreign countries. The IDF failure to even try to win the "hearts and minds" of the citizens of Gaza while terrorists you're fighting is a tragedy that will repeatly return to haunt Israel.
You misunderstand. Nobody wants Israel to 'go away'. Even the Arab League is willing to recognise it and live at peace. What the Israel bashers DO want is for Israel to stop behaving like a racist, nationalist rogue nation, stealing land that was never given to it, oppressing the indigenous occupied people, committing war crimes and continually breaking international law. Even more maybe, stop with the endless faux-justifications, threats, libels, cries of victimisation and forked-tongue speaking by everyone who ever occupies high office in the state. That shouldn't be too much to ask from The Chosen Ones, 'the most moral army', 'the only democratic state in the Middle East' - surely? The criticism is of Israel's morality, which seems to have gone walkabout about 42 years ago.
"So their positions aren`t televised to enemy combatants." Now you're reaching SDHD. I don't buy that argument whatsoever, and neither should you. Come on, put that hate aside for a sec and put 2 and 2 together. If I see a black cow, I call it a black cow. One must realize that news agencies have a code of ethics it must abide by during war coorespondance or they risk being censored altogether. Granted they can spin their photos and articles until they're dizzy, but they cannot put either combatting parties at logistical risk. Just ask Geraldo. Israel did this solely because they knew they would quickly lose world, and possibly domestic support because of the devastation that was occuring. This would have likely forced them to end their operation too soon to their liking. It happened anyway...
Michael seems to think that my referring to you as a fool demonstrates that I have no argument when I demonstrate your foolishness in asserting the '48 lines are the only lines. Even though no serious politicians are discussing the '48 lines. They discuss the '67 lines. See the argument, or just the insult, fools?
r cummings wrote: "The USA will save Israel as usual, because of Jewish money/votes." Is this a part of legitimate cricism of Israel, as is so often claimed, or is this antisemitism under the pretense of legitimate criticism of Israel? If this is not antisemitism, what, in your view, WOULD be?
Chauvinistic? OK fair enough, seems pretty accurate.
"there is no such thing as a "non-sovereign state." such is your invention." In CJ's case, there is such a thing as a non-sovereign state. He lives in a permanent state of debilitating confusion, but this is not a state where he is the sovereign. So many anti-Israelis join him there.
"You can always tell somebody who knows his arguments are weak." You can always tell when some idiots don't know a valid argument coupled with an insult. They only see the insult. "They usually tend to stop such blatant reliance on invective." If I tell you that 1+1=2, dummy... Are you saying 1+1=2 is not a valid argument because all you see is the invective?
" HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL."
"If you`re so righteous, then why pray tell did Israel not allow a single foreign news network access to Gaza during their socalled precision operations. Why?" So their positions aren't televised to enemy combatants. " Did the `most moral army in the world` have something to hide?" Yes. Their positions.
Why is Israel held to another standard than the rest of the world? Is it because you want us Jews to disappear? Probably. To all of you with your "flawed" and biased comments, go channel your hate towards the muslim and christian countries that kill thousands and preach racism all over the world. We are not going away !!!
"#119. No My assertions always have a basis in primary source documents. The Knesset, The UN, The Israeli Government, Yale law." Now, all you have to do is base your assertions on reality, screwball. No one is discussing the '48 lines. They are discussing the '67 lines.
"SDHD, why does Haaretz allow your abuse?" Why does it afford you the freedom to criticize Israel in a way that no other Middle Eastern country you support would allow? "Non-sovereign states and non state entities such as Palestine can have territories too. They`re NOT Israel`s." Well, those territories are NOT the Palestinians' either, are they, dopey one? "Israel Declared boundaries." A few things have happened since then, dopey one. No one is even talking about those boundaries anymore, except for dopey people. "It has never legally annexed any territories outside of those boundaries." Why do most countries recognize Israel AT LEAST within the '67 lines at this point my clueless foil? "Perhaps instead of abuse, you should be trying to refute... http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y Go ahead..." Perhaps you should understand that I'm laughing at a fool who asserts the '48 lines are the only lines as if '67 never happened. Which politicians are negotiating over the '48 lines, clown?
"If you`re so righteous, then why pray tell did Israel not allow a single foreign news network access to Gaza during their socalled precision operations. Why?" So the terrorists couldn't see the soldiers' locations on TV.
there is no such thing as a "non-sovereign state." such is your invention.
You can always tell somebody who knows his arguments are weak. It's like SDHD - they rely on insults. I'm also curious as to why Haaretz lets him get away with it. They usually tend to stop such blatant reliance on invective.
People have been told so many lies about how moral their country and army is and how unique it is and they need to hear it ain't so. And the thing about the truth is it can have a transforming power. So bring it on! Dutch
From 1948 until now the jewish honme of Israel became a militery goal for all agressive antisemits to destroy the state of Israel. Israel made a lot of mistakes to return good answers, to defend itself, and to develop democracy, freedom and safety. To day Iran try to organize another agressive military group to attack Israel. Political clown R.Goldstone has no any headaches to defend and to develop Israel. He and his boss have only one problem: to make more pain to independent Israel. Vlad
Cipora, are you really a race horse? This can be the only conclusion since you seem to always have your blinders on. How does one go through life with such tunnel vision anyway. Does Israel ever do anything wrong in your eyes? I might be Palestinian, but even I point out our leader's flaws, and there are many. How can one be objective if they simply cannot, or refuse to open their eyes to the wider realities going on? I try time and time again to read your posts, but they always say the same thing, same narrow vision. Please seek some help.
"sdhd, tell us what could possibly be "classified" about who did what in gaza, and when...and why? or why this or that was targetted? and how could testimonies describing events that took place, by the idf officers and soldiers involved in the ground invasion, be considered "classified"?" What's your IQ?
#117 You just make it up. Hilariously funny your little straw men. Pity they always fall over. #118 Non-sovereign states and non state entities such as Palestine can have territories too. They're NOT Israel's. Israel Declared boundaries. It has never legally annexed any territories outside of those boundaries. #119. No My assertions always have a basis in primary source documents. The Knesset, The UN, The Israeli Government, Yale law. Perhaps instead of abuse, you should be trying to refute... http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y Go ahead...
If you're so righteous, then why pray tell did Israel not allow a single foreign news network access to Gaza during their socalled precision operations. Why? Did the 'most moral army in the world' have something to hide? Well obviously. And to demonize Goldstone with such intensity...this, a man who claims to be a zionist and fervent supporter of Israel...start looking within folks. BTW, I've followed your posts, and as usual you're an idiot. You do not disappoint. Maybe the San Diego sun has fried your noodle. Trying heading north along PCH and maybe the cooler temps will salvage what's left of it.
Bradley Burston = Natalie Durston Do you see what I'm getting at?
... well, I consider Cipora so unwaveringly chauvanistic, that there is no point in repeatedly heckling her about this point or that... and needless to say, it casts no aspertions on the honorable & worthy Judge Goldstone...
Burston is your typical self-loathing leftist, nothing more. His battle colors are the white flag of surrender.
They can't talk about fake proofs takem from false evidences and poorly detailed statements.
was the killing of the samouni family a "surgical strike"?
about who did what in gaza, and when...and why? or why this or that was targetted? and how could testimonies describing events that took place, by the idf officers and soldiers involved in the ground invasion, be considered "classified"? or should i be asking why "would" it be classified? the highest classification for the type of information required would be "restricted"...possibly "confidential", although not very likely. neither of which would pose any threat to israel's security; especially not in the hands of an investigative body chosen by israel. so tell us sdhd, IF israel decides to form some sort of investigative body, why do YOU think the idf is so adamant about blocking its access to the personnel involved in the invasion? and do you think its reason might be somehow related to the same reason it refused to allow media coverage...despite an israeli supreme court order? what about it making sure no one carried a cellphone or camera on their person during the invasion? do you think that might ALSO be connected? by the way, the answer to your question is the "winograd commission"...for one.
"To Israel that means that once it shouts the Magic Words "Defense! Defense! Defense!" then it can do whatever it wants." And no rockets were flying and no terror attacks were attempted. Poor slob. You're so clueless.
"To Israel that means that once it shouts the Magic Words "Defense! Defense! Defense!" then it can do whatever it wants." So, there were no rockets or terror attacks against Israel, right dopey?
H: "So why the Obama administration support Israel in its rejection?" Because the relationship between Israel and the USA is one where the tail wags the dog. H: "Because the contention that acceptance of the very premise of the validity of an investigation fatally compromising Israeli self-defense is true. " No, what is fatally compromised is Israel's definition of "self-defense". To Israel that means that once it shouts the Magic Words "Defense! Defense! Defense!" then it can do whatever it wants. And if anyone raises any questions then Israel need only shout "terror! terror! terror!" and all questions are swept aside. And if *that* doesn't work then it can choose between: A) You anti-semite bastard! or B) You pathetic, snivelling self-hating Jew. It has worked every other time but, so sorry, Israel appears to have lost its mojo. Bummer, heh?
"It is also axiomatic that the only way a trust fund can be wound up is by the trustee making a determination that the assets go to the two beneficiaries *thus* and *so*." BOTH Jews AND Arabs were the trustees in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, genius. Your posts pretend the trustees were solely the Arabs. You do know that the Arabs rejected the UN's recommendation for a split along ethnic lines, tried to take the whole thing, and kicked the Jews out of the areas which came under their control. That wasn't enough -- they launched another war 19 years later. Oops!
""Uh?" is most appropriate when faced with the repeated ignorance of facts, false accusations, slurs, unsupported assertions...." It seems you must say, "uh" to yourself quite often.
me: "Now, all you have to do is tell us when the territory belonged exclusively to Arabs over the last 1400 years" cj: "Why? I`ve never claimed it was.." Not stolen then, is it?
me: "How do you conduct a war against terrorists who fire rockets into your civilian areas from their own civilian areas? Tell us, Patton." cj: Oh? You`re suggesting that commiting war crimes that result in civilian deaths is OK if you`re fighting terrorists? No, I'm suggesting surgical strikes which inevitably, and very unfortunately result in civilian casualties, pathetic one. When your terrorist friends put on uniforms, carry their arms openly and stop targeting civilians, the need to conduct this sort of war will be unecessary.
igent reply the qutab writings have poisoned the mind of many Muslims... teach non violence to the lost generations of Muslims to end this violent posture internal peace is needed in the Muslim societies. it will end the corruption and plunder of the public resources. the rest may be easy.
Eric "so IF the report is indeed flawed, then SHOW that it`s flawed!" Haaretz did that yesterday in this article http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1148851.html i sugest you read it. Israel is found to be guilty because Goldstone and his co-austhor decided to not believe what IDf showed as proof but conviniently beleived all hear say stories that Palestinians have told them. If that is not Flwed report what is ?
Have you actually read the Goldstone Report?
Because the contention that acceptance of the very premise of the validity of an investigation fatally compromising Israeli self-defense is true. This isn't about morality but politics and war. Israel has long needed internal evaluations of all kinds, so do other nations. Bottom line: Each nation or culture must do its own criticism. Israel needs more effective internal criticism, not moralistic kibitzers.
17: "Documentation supporting sovereign ownership by Arabs any territory in Judea and Samaria would be helpful." 1) Here is a trust fund. 2) Here are its assets. 3) Here is the trustee. 4) Here are the two beneficiaries. It is axiomatic that the assets in that trust fund are not "owned" by either beneficiary, nor are they "owned" by the trustee. It is also axiomatic that the only way a trust fund can be wound up is by the trustee making a determination that the assets go to the two beneficiaries *thus* and *so*. It is not a requirement that they must "prove" that they had "previously owned" those assets i.e. the trustee's determination is all that is required to assign ownership *to* them. It is not possible for beneficiary "A" to steal assets that were apportioned to beneficiary "B", and certainly not by shouting "But B never owned them before!". THAT argument is spurious. So is yours.
Actually, Goldstone (Waldo) needs Israel.
One can easily sense that through your brutal criticism your concern is for the long-term stability and security for the Israeli state. The status quo has to change. But will they listen?
Hamas fired rockets, knowing that sooner or later Israel would respond with overwhelming force. Then Hamas and other jihadist sympathizers (like some of the people on this talkback) got the world to cry for the civilian victims that Hamas purposely sacrificed , solely for the purpose of blaming Israel for civilian deaths (warcrimes). Now, all they needed was somebody to help bring their self-inflicted catastrophe to the world's attention. And guess who they found: Goldstone the Dupe!
And since Burston repeats the lies 'they must be true'. And since there is a Goldston report it must be true.Would Goldston ever lie?
The problem is in our reaction to wild accusations of war crimes, etc. Those who unleashed the war (Hamas, et al), have no legal or other rights to complain about details of the war. I still remember very well WWII events...many of them. I would say to arabs - do not start the war and you shall live in peace..
Why don't you move there encourage the Palestinian kids to learn real history not the revisionist ones, teach them critical reasoning and independent thought and the benefits of coexistence over the fiery political and religious rhetoric of their leadership PA and Hamas both of whose charters call for Israel's destruction. Why don't you work on the Corrupt PA which hides money and uses it for sinister projects or western donations that go into terrorist training camps. I don't understand how you could be so hard on Israel when the Islamist kill innocents everyday and when Hamas fired at babies in Siderot for 8 years. Maybe you need to go live in that city when its under attack. I really can't understand people who condemn one side without the other
That seems a rather pointless statement. It matters because I see here Cipora has been denigrating the report for months. So if by virtue of the points she made that anyone can check with the references I give above, she indicates that she hasn't read it or at least without much attention and that her prolific number of posts trying to defame Goldstone and the report might just be through some bitter resentment towards criticism of Israel in Cast Lead, then yes it matters. That her denigrating Goldstone the man and his report in effect has nothing to actually do with what the report said or didn't say or do. Yes, I think that matters quite a bit. If people just repeat something which confirms their prejudice without examining the substance for themselves that is how lies and myths are spread. Would you have people repeat holocaust denials simply because they refused to examine the evidence for the holocaust themselves and preferred to repeat falsehoods which suited their prejudices? I guess you would say that doesn't matter either? So would your philosophy be, nothing matters, neither sincerity nor rigour nor accuracy nor truth? If that is the case then you may as well not post.
"CJ: UH? UH UH! UH UH UH? UH, UH! UH?? Name: Parlez vous Ozzie?" "Uh?" is most appropriate when faced with the repeated ignorance of facts, false accusations, slurs, unsupported assertions.... http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y Underkerstumble?
It is the Gaza war, not the Goldstone report, that damaged Israel?s image. All these debates about the truth of the Goldstone report are of little effect on the public opinion outside Israel. Most people in the West have seen and read the reports in the media during and after the war. They already know what enormous destruction and misery the Israeli army caused in Gaza. While they have no sympathy at all for Hamas, because of its hatred for Israel and its outdated Islamic theocratic ideals, they don?t understand why metaphorically speaking someone who pricks you with a stick, needs to be crushed with a sledgehammer. Mr Burston is of course quite right that the blockade of Gaza is counterproductive; it only leads to a strengthening of Hamas. Since it is obvious that neither Hamas (rockets attacks as an answer on the blockade) nor Israel (blockade as an answer on rocket attacks) are able to let go of each other, it is the people of Gaza who suffer the grave consequences of this conflict. So a solution for this drama must be found elsewhere. Why not let the UN take over control and administration of the Gaza Strip for about 5 years along the same lines as it did in Kosovo. They can than disarm the militia?s and Israel can lift the blockade. The UN can start the rebuilding and create jobs for especially the young man (the present unemployment rate in Gaza is 45% !). So instead of filling their idle time acting as a jihad warriors, these young man can get a job and earn a income. In that way the people also become less dependent on Hamas charities. If in the meantime there has come into existence an Palestinian state on the West Bank, than the Gaza Strip can after 5 years be added to this state.
"There are state entities (not Sovereign) ____ Exampples? and non-state entities." ______ examples? "They can and do, have territories which do not belong to any one else." ________ Any examples? _____"to have territories" apparently is not the sovereignty over the said territories? "Israel is a Sovereign State. It`s territories are ONLY what it Declared Sovereignty over..." _______ Any evidence Israel defined territories except "Eretz Israel" in Declaration? "HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL." "Sovereign Arab territory" is not quotation - just a remainder of the fake rights on something that is not happened. I understand you have no documentation substantiating any sovereign Arab rights in Judea and Samaria. ps. It is very important to try to write clearly, of course if is not a device to claim to be misread and misunderstood.
Hamas wants an end to Zionism and to the injustices it has inflicted on the Palestinian people. This is an honorable goal. Bradley Burston accuses Israel of self-deception, but he is decieving himself too!
When Gaza became JEW-FREE it became a state from which noone seems to be really in charge and everyone can fire missiles into Israel. Whether or not the borders were still being monitored by the IDF the Gazans had a choice. Build a society for the people. Show your willingness to be peaceful in your land and therefore put more pressure on Israel directly or through world opinion to do even more for the Gazans...like give them more freedom and let them control their own destinies. BUT NO..the decision was to continue to fire more and more missiles. Eventually Israel had to react. The result was the Goldstone report but more important. QUIETNESS from Gaza. But still no hand from Hamas in terms of peace..only a build up of arms for the next go around. Call it a death wish or suicide.
CJ: Obviously you are discounting the illegal occupation of Aboriginal land by white English settlers and their transferred criminals to Botany Bay, the forced indoctrination and break-up of Aborginals from their families only just recently apologized for by the Australian government, and oh yes, the genocidal mass murder of every Aboriginal Tasmanian by mounted death cavalry during the 19th Century. Ok. Now continue lecturing Israel. We're all ears.
So when Goldstone's second in command in the investigative effort -- Desmond Travers -- publicly states that Hamas only fired 2 rockets before Operation Lead, that is further proof to you that Israel refuses to look at itself in the mirror, that the Goldstone Report was beneficial, and that any half-truth or distortion in the report is Israel's own fault?
//"BTW you forgot 62 years of illegally acquiring other folks territory,"// Trouble reading? Can you see the word 'stolen'? "Now, all you have to do is tell us when the territory belonged exclusively to Arabs over the last 1400 years" Why? I've never claimed it was....Perhaps you could show us some evidence that it was EVER exclusively Jewish for one day in the last million years "Was it illegal for Jews to reclaim their own properties after 19 years" C) Are they the same Palestinian Jews? B) Or are they Israeli Jews? "my little bigot?" Making false accusations is against the basic tenets of Judaism....You're not Jewish?
... live-and-let-live...
"CJ the legal expert" You're having hallucinations? Fantasies? What exactly? "How do you conduct a war against terrorists who fire rockets into your civilian areas from their own civilian areas? Tell us, Patton." Oh? You're suggesting that commiting war crimes that result in civilian deaths is OK if you're fighting terrorists? I suggest that our homeland A) Stops colonizing B) Defends itself according to the Laws of War it VOLUNTARILY obliged itself to, which give ample scope for self defense against all comers.
"... none of that anything to do with the Goldstone report" Esther No truth can be disassociated from its roots Esther. Not even by any Guiltystone ! Those who are subjugating Gaza to day, their agenda like their benifactors in Tehran; wants to remove Israel from the map ! After Israel gave them a piece of land for a future Palestine, on a plate and accepted them as neighbors! The Palestinians present is no different from their past ! They are born without gratitude. Those who can't live with others with respect they ends up not able to live among themselves with respect. The Palestinians distance themselves from humanity & now all they want is to create Hell! With or without Palestine! And Hell is the future if the Islamic Republic of Iran (the last serious friend of the Palestinians) & a source of a cancerous evil that must be removed ! Goldstone was supposed to make a report on terrorists activities & miserably failed ! There was no WAR in Gaza. Just extracting evil.
entity . There are state entities (not Sovereign) and non-state entities. They can and do, have territories which do not belong to any one else. Israel is a Sovereign State. It's territories are ONLY what it Declared Sovereignty over and what it has LEGALLY annexed...It has never legally annexed any territories.. "Sovereign Arab territory" proclaimed before October 1, 1948 ?" Something you made up and then "quoted" ??? "Documentation supporting sovereign ownership by Arabs any territory in Judea and Samaria would be helpful." Then posed a question based on your fake "quote" "CJ apparently possess the document(s) and hopefully would share it with us." then made an accusation based on your pajero "quote"? My goodness, you are an expert.
At least not up to the end of January. See the following talk back.My Post #259. And cipora at #245 in reply to her friend stephen of geneve who in #99 states his doubts that she had read the report. http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1144596.html Her claims in post #245 make it clear she had not read it thoroughly, if at all and was likely taking bullet points from anti Goldstone websites.
This is slander.
"Pray tell, when do you and your neighbors plan on leaving the occupied Aboriginal territory of Australia?" A) Show us the UNSC resolution.... B) for all you know I could be Aboriginal C) Gee Jacob Blues of New York City USA, I didn't realize American Indians had Jewish blood.
"Gee CJ, ever hear of Tibet?..how about Kashmir? Or the breakaway republics in Georgia, aided and abetted by Russia?" Yes sireeee ma'am. Ever heard of the word 'and'. NONE of the above fit the same criterion. You put our homeland in the same category for some reason? "Israel set up safe zones and instituted daily "time outs" during Cast Lead." It prevented civilians fleeing a war zone, not even via their own territorial waters... Of course, given your mindset, I can see how Egypt`s actions become Israel`s when it closed its own border" It's obliged when Israel demands under the 2005 agreement. Try reading it. "So too, that Israel refused to let those from the enemy nation into its own territory you consider "illegal"" As I said, read VERY carefully' and don't make things up. "Of course, given your mindset, I can see .." You know nothing about my mindset.
and caused great pain and suffering to the people there so that they would drive them from their homes and take them for themselves...
"Britain fihting real war" And sucking at it-the British creme de la creme,Royal Marines taking prisone by the Iranians andfalling over themselvelves in thei zest to incriminate the HM Goverment are the proof. And the Afghanis and Iraqis are fighting for their own means while the pals are being constantly resupplied by the EU money. Also Colonel Kemp tells a different story : Israel is taking greater care to protect civilians than the British Army does.
and Bradley admits it, then why is he praises it so much?
"There`s nothing flawed about the Goldstone report at all." He also owns a few acres on Mars, will sell them cheap.
"the only resolution to the questions it raises is for israel to abide by the report`s recommendation with an independent committee of investigation that has FULL access to records and personnel; without ANY restrictions." List any state which will turn over its classified information to an "independent committee," when security concerns are paramount.
the society, as many others, might be deeply flawed. it is flawed on the right, just as it is flawed on the left. did you not say with regard to the division of jerusalem, "over my dead body?" so where exactly is that magical green line?
DELETED BY MODERATOR
.....how comes that nobody is saying that Hamas needs Goldstone? THREE CHEERS FOR ISRAEL!!!
Seriously,As a Jew you should know that the Goldstone R
... the issue is Israeli mores and behaviour and what they indicate...
disproving the report is up to israel. the report cannot be used to prove or disprove its own validity. the only resolution to the questions it raises is for israel to abide by the report's recommendation with an independent committee of investigation that has FULL access to records and personnel; without ANY restrictions. likewise, the report cannot be proven or disproven with generalizations of "they did"/"we did", and claims of the most moral army in the world. so your musings on the report(or mine or anyone else's), are no more authoritative than anyone else's biased "beliefs"; either pro or con. all of us here have our own opinions on this subject, cipora. unfortunately, none is more qualified than any other.
"We have been sensing the symptoms for a year now. In shock, the first sign to appear is often confusion. A curious sense of weakness can be felt. A restlessness that is little understood. A coldness. Mental clouding. Apathy. Inactivity. There may be blurred vision." - Bradley Burston And the Israeli right, which controls the nation, has a solution. A new war, any war, with anyone, to wipe away the shock and bring the joy of victory back to Israel.
DELETED BY MODERATOR
"BTW you forgot 62 years of illegally acquiring other folks territory," Now, all you have to do is tell us when the territory belonged exclusively to Arabs over the last 1400 years (except for 1948-67 when Arabs captured it and kicked all the Jews out). Was it illegal for Jews to reclaim their own properties after 19 years, my little bigot?
"Israel's battle plan, which effectively called for bludgeoning Hamas and the whole of Gaza into a state of shock..." If true, this is a war crime... "The Goldstone Report is, indeed, deeply flawed." Bradley, you could at least explain why it is deeply flawed. It looks like you are afraid to say the report is mostly correct. "And Gaza, ruled by a Hamas which wants to see Israel exterminated - and which has only grown richer, better armed, and more popular as a result of the Israeli embargo - will continue to hold the whole of Israel in a crippling, withering, ultimately destructive state of siege. " I feel you have your facts wrong. Isn't it Gaza that is under siege and boycotted? It is quite a leap to reverse it. This is right wing talk.
" Israel has a right to defend itself. It does not have the right to commit war crimes doing it." How do you conduct a war against terrorists who fire rockets into your civilian areas from their own civilian areas? Tell us, Patton.
"You have been having rockets fired at you in San Diego California? How did I miss that news?" Maybe you missed the tense the statement I was replying to was written in.
... this is not a "deeply flawed report for a deeply flawed country" but a deeply flawed report for a country brought to its knees by its enemies!
torturing captives in Iraq and Afghanistan ,will you ? The recent disclosures of it (from no more than a month ago) have been effectively ignored by the pious Brit press,the BBC and you .
"Sovereign Arab territory" proclaimed before October 1, 1948 ? Documentation supporting sovereign ownership by Arabs any territory in Judea and Samaria would be helpful. CJ apparently possess the document(s) and hopefully would share it with us.
The Goldstone Report was produced by a fair minded team, headed by a Jew. The first body that called the report "deeply flawed" was the US State Department, and this by now has been often repeated. Justice Goldston has invited the critics to point out the supposed "deep flaws", but this task is apparently too hard because such flaws have not been exposed. It is more likely that the state Department's reaction was simply political. Hilary Clinton knows very well which side of the circumcision divide the stream (of money contributions) is coming from. The Goldstone Report calls for the two sides (Hamas was accused as well) to conduct fair investigations. In the absence of this, the Security Council is called to investigate. Perhaps this will end up before the ICC, but Israel can still avoid this by appointing a commission of inquiry, which is provided for by Israeli law. Just do it and stop accusing everybody else.
May us Israelis wake up to the fact that the world is angry at us for a reason. The world wants us to realize we need to put as much (or more!) energy into peacemaking than we put into feeling fear and victimhood. Our military is 100 times more powerful than Hamas' - that is why our responsibility is MORE than Hamas to be leaders in peacemaking. If we could truly make peace with our neighbors, G-d would really bless the Jewish nation.....
DELETED BY MODERATOR
The arab-palestinians must blame themselves for all that is happen to them... Their negative response is total madness ! The Palestinians were given a recognized State since the beginning of this conflict, including Jerusalem & was rejected by all of them ! Isn't that what the arab & the palestinians & their supporters are asking now in the too late 2-state solution? Too late indeed ! The element of trust between Israel and the palestinians vanished ! A new serious problem of animosity created by savage wars; both the Palestinians & the Arab waged against Israel for 60 years now !? Israel is left with nothing but to defend itself and its people. Gaza was liberated by Israel & given as a sign of the Palestinians victory. Gaza was a first step for a Palestine. But the Palestinians never play their cards right. They made Gaza a hell for themselves and Israel. With a vision of animosity that no neighbor will ever tolerate ! The unrecognized truth !
Goldstone's report has errors of fact, methodology, and legal interpretation, all well documented, as is the bias and anti-Jewish animus of its field inspectors. Nor does Israel need reflexive left-wing embrace of anti-Israel propaganda under the rubric of truth-telling or hard facts, or necessary shocks to the system.
DELETED BY MODERATOR
DELETED BY MODERATOR
Pray tell, when do you and your neighbors plan on leaving the occupied Aboriginal territory of Australia?
how about Kashmir? Or the breakaway republics in Georgia, aided and abetted by Russia? Perhaps you're familiar with the conflict in the Western Sahara and Morocco's own 'occupation'. Maybe the claims and counter claims in Armenia and Azerbejan? Further south, you have the fight between Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers. As for "and no other country has recently illegally prevented civilians from fleeing a war zone", Israel set up safe zones and instituted daily "time outs" during Cast Lead. Of course, given your mindset, I can see how Egypt's actions become Israel's when it closed its own border. So too, that Israel refused to let those from the enemy nation into its own territory you consider "illegal".
Burston did not present one real fact to support this whole self flagellating thesis. Goldstone and his partners in this report were not interested in facts. Their conclusions were pre-written. In fact he was in Sderot and his co-conspirator on the committee just yesterday was quoted that only 2 measly missiles were fired on Sderot before the Israeli reaction. We cooperated with our executioners in the past hoping to mitigate their wrath. It did not work. We now have our independence and sovereignty and can stand on our dignity without lowering our eyes to the ground when the kalgas goes by.
Leftist intelligence says the only moral way to fight the forces of darkness that have sought to destroy Judaism and the Jewish people is to march into the gas chambers like sheep. Suicide murderers, terror, ...blah blah blah. If you say so, no one else is,,,, BTW you forgot 62 years of illegally acquiring other folks territory, creating hundreds of thousands of refugees. Building illegal settlements, illegally annexing etc etc etc etc. Why? Did you forget?
Israel has a right to defend itself. It does not have the right to commit war crimes doing it. Neither do Hamas. But they, like Israel, have a right to defend themselves AND they have the right to attack Israeli military, wherever the Israeli military might be. As for the 'no other country' twaddle....No other country is occupying and illegally acquiring territory and illegally building civilian structures in "territories occupied" and illegally annexing territory illegally acquired by war and instituting their own Civilian law in "territories occupied" and no other country has recently illegally prevented civilians from fleeing a war zone, (including the border with Egypt under the 2005 agreement) then attacked, leaving innocent people no where to flee the war but somewhere else in the same war zone.
enough already!!!! bradley, why don't you just suggest that we roll over and play dead. enough with goldstone, enough with all the comments that preceeded mine. we were attacked constantly for years by 1000's of rockets, there is no morality and justification for targeting innocent civilians. we need no justification legal or otherwise for trying to give the citizens of the south some peace. any other country would have done the same or fought back harder and caused more damage.in addition they wouldn't have the UN investigating them either. enough with all the whining and self-criticism. either we protect ourselves as best we can or last one on the plane out of here turn out the lights!!!
Set aside the stupid "traitor" comment and his read his detailed criticisms in the Jerusalem Report. You are playing into the same "kill the messenger" mentality you are criticizing. There is another side to this. We shouldn't dismiss Goldstone, but we shouldn't dismiss the legitimate criticisms that exist either.
---
"legitimate armed resistance". Your claim that "The firing of rockets into Israeli so indiscriminately is surely a terrible thing but given how beaten down these people have been under occupation and how few tools of resistance to tyranny they have at their disposal, is it any wonder such terrible actions are taken?" NO! There is no right to attack civilians daily for eight years. There is no right to suicide bomb attacks or rocket attacks against civilians. And, contrary to your belief, Israel did try to wage peace with the Palestinians prior to this conflict. Your excuse is that only Israel has the ability to change things. Such a cop-out offers up an easy out for the killings of Jews. Sorry, but we're no longer willing to provide targets for those who can't figure out a peaceful way to live together. Likewise, the idea that the Goldstone report is 'measured criticism' is bunk. For defending their homes, Israelis are called war criminals, hardly measured.
The idea that after all of the report's flaws, after the open anti-Israel attacks by both Goldstone committee members and the UNHRC, after the blatant bias exhibited by the UNHRC, tossing aside any of the commentary related to HAMAS actions in this conflict, we're told that Israel "NEEDS" this report. There is something inherently masochistic about such a response. Does Israel need beating? Does it need unreviled hate? Does it deserve to have a supposedly 'unbiased' referee walk hand in hand with an enemy dedicated to its destruction? When the idea is that this report is for "Our Own Good", and without it Israel is "Doomed", speaks to a need for self-flagellation, or survivors guilt for daring to stop attacks on one's own homes and targeting civilians, including children. Given the actions Israel took, the phone calls, the daily time outs, the targets it didn't hit, one has to honestly confront the question, what would have been sufficient against an enemy like HAMAS
" ... the world must turn it's back on israel " L I don't think they can do that ! They will have no other nation to hate ! What the jews gets from the world except practicing persecution, an easy target, being called names, forbidden equality, imitating their religion... Shall i say, sending them to the ovens & in mass or that is too much for the world selective conscious ! Will it be a hard truth to add denying their own crimes against the Jews ? ! Or your answer will be " I am not my brother keeper" !? For how long Israel has to pay for the Palestinians & Arab mistakes ?! The Palestinians were given their 'Palestine' in 1947 & rejected it by all of them ! And now, they are killing Jews for '2-state' solution ?! And blaming Israel for the nakba that inflicted upon themselves ! How one can win with such mashugaim ! Isn't it better and safer to know only their back ! Work it for yourself Labhras !
Goldstone gave Israel every opportunity to disprove allegations of war crimes. Instead Israel along with the USA mounted a personal attack on Goldstone. In this information age, most of the world can readily see what is happening. Videos, photos and personal testimonies can be viewed within minutes of a great travesty of justice. People have seen it happen in Iran, Georgia, the Balkans, as well as Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Two populations choose to live in ignorance of the Israel-Palestine conflict realities, namely the USA and Israel. Goldstone attempted to provide truth as a basis for justice, but Israel and the USA were not ready for truth.
report. Let's remember after the whopping three day examination by the Goldstone committee, investigations that included HAMAS, you know the other party mentioned in the report, the one supposedly also on the hook for potential war crimes, and the one that retracted its own half-hearted apology, and a point-blank commentary that said "we didn't shoot any rockets at any civilians". That report, was essentially gutted by the UNHRC essentially eliminating any discussion of HAMAS actions during the conflict. We're not talking a white wash, we're talking the usual, consistant UN hack off Israel at the knees 'mafia hit'. Tony Soprano would be proud. So the idea that if Israel doesn't "Pay Heed" to Goldstone, that "Woe is Us, We're Doomed", doesn't hold water... not a thimble full. The idea that if we don't then HAMAS is going to grow to the size of Goliath, also is empty suit argument. So too, is there no weight when other party to this conflict has ZERO obligations.
The problem with the Goldstone report rests in its bastardized birth, not some maybe truths that might be uncovered. The Goldstone report was born in the bowels of the anti-Israel UNHRC. This is the son of the UN body that was dissolved over its anti-Israel hate mongering. Let's remember, that this was the same unlamented group that brought us the Debacle in Durban Jew-hate-fest. So when its reincarnation, stocked with Arab and Muslim states, picks up where its predecessor left off, the credibility gap, is steep, with good reason. So we come to Goldstone, a committee filled with a Pakistani, a Brit who publically already declared Israel's guilt BEFORE even joining the committee, and now its Irish counterpart declaring that there was no real attack by HAMAS prior to Cast Lead. Sorry Brad, this background kills any potential credibility that Justice Goldstone might have offered.
DELETED BY MODERATOR
Mr. Burston: What an excellent and deep thinking report. You have laid out your soul and there are not many Jews who are willing to tell the truth. If Israel continues with their bullying tactics they will certainly will continue to dig their own hole. God bless you
DELETED BY MODERATOR
The one abiding memory I have from Cast Lead besides the enormous destruction was watching news clips of Israeli families siting on the hilltops overlooking Gaza. They were picnicking as if they were at the seaside and cheering and applauding every explosion as if they were revelling in the carnage and death that it brought. If this is not indicative of the direction that Israeli society has taken then what will it take!
DELETED BY MODERATOR
DELETED BY MODERATOR
its enemies circulated wild,gruesome, absurd accusations that evaporated with the morning sun. They mention one horrible crime, say the massacre in Jenin, and you point out that it was an invention, a blood libel disproven a hundred times over. They mention another - say, the Mohammad al-Dura affair - and again you refute the point. At a certain point they say something like, "Well, it's not the specific examples that matter, it's the general point that counts." You would think that the "objective" observers of the world would stop believing the libels, but I guess objectivity isn't what it used to be, and unfounded rumours continue to fill the "fact-finding" reports. http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/26847
DELETED BY MODERATOR
I agree with what is written in this article. On the other hand I think Alan Dershowitz is a big coward. Instead of answering the report with serious arguments he goes to rethorics and names Goldstone names. I must berate Goldstone's courage because he really knew what will fall on him after the report, yet he worked on it. Maybe Godstone actually is a hero and not like schmaltz Derschowitz whose writings smell of schtetle. What a clown. Inever had Derscho in high regard, now after calling names to Goldstone I think he's fallen very, very low. Of course the report is flawn, but then the goverment of Israel would do the right thing to work seriously to answer it without slogans: IDF the most moral army in the world, Ehud barak (or maybe it is Ehud barakh from Tzeilim) is the most moral Defence Minister in the world and Tzipi Livni is the most moral foreign minister in the world. Come on, do something useful.
DELETED BY MODERATOR
A brutally honest article... like a sledge-hammer to the soul. Addicts struggle through cold-turkey. Long ago, severe psychotics needed to endure a lobotomy. It seems to me, us Jews and Israelis in particular... can't hide from the truth. No matter how painful or gut-wrenching that may be. These are the reckonings of the human spirit. But I wonder if there's another nation on this planet, that can be so brutally honest with itself... as Mr. Burston suggests.
Exactly how and what parts of it are flawed? " "If this were a court of law," Goldstone admitted to the Forward, "there would have been nothing proven."
DELETED BY MODERATOR
DELETED BY MODERATOR
Leftist intelligence says the only moral way to fight the forces of darkness that have sought to destroy Judaism and the Jewish people is to march into the gas chambers like sheep. Suicide murderers, terror, groups of humanity fixating their lives on destroying Judaism and Israel can't be resisted. Checkpoints, security barriers, security are immoral to these intelligentia that pander to the dark forces of anti-Semitism, anti-Judaism, and anti-Israel. It's ok to bomb thousands of times innocent Jewish civilians and do nothing about the assaults. It is okay for a whole society to preach genocide against Israel and the Jews, to use human shields, to fight their war disguised as civilians from so-called civilian settings. to be Islamic Jihadhists engaged in a global terror war to dominate the world and destroy Judaism and every OTHER religion. Has it ever occured to the panderers that Israel has to fight this skunk of darkness and gets a smell by engaging. There is no choice.
Burston did not present one real fact to support this whole self flagellating thesis. Goldstone and his partners in this report were not interested in facts. Their conclusions were pre-written. In fact he was in Sderot and his co-conspirator on the committee just yesterday was quoted that only 2 measly missiles were fired on Sderot before the Israeli reaction. We cooperated with our executioners in the past hoping to mitigate their wrath. It did not work. We now have our independence and sovereignty and can stand on our dignity without lowering our eyes to the ground when the kalgas goes by.
DELETED BY MODERATOR
DELETED BY MODERATOR
Many of Israels right wing supporters simply keep squawking that the Goldstone report is flawed. They do this over and over again. Exactly how and what parts of it are flawed? Have any of these people even read the report or are they the usual Greek Chorus of "Israel can do no wrong"? Israels supporters often shy away from facts and figures because the raw and unspun facts are almost always unflattering to Israel. A question for them: Did Goldstone get anything right regarding Israel and their part in the Gaza op or is it all "flawed".
those who became goldstones to please surroundings. Israel also has a lot of left wing idiots who have not still changed their names into gold-something.
I do agree with Bradley Burston. In fact, Israel is far becoming a divided society. Obviously, this has become a major stumbling block for those the really seek peace. Those that live within the Green Line. One can only assume that with all the external threats either from afar such as Tehran, Israelis today recognize that PM Netanyahu could well safeguard the very survival of Israel. Kadima was known as more moderate, yet it was under the Kadima Leadership that both Lebanon and Gaza were invaded. Until, Hamas and Fatah are reconciled, any future peace partners are but a whisper in the dark. The Goldstone Report may well have its flaws. However, Israel must reconcile with its own deep social divisions. Good day from extremely snowy Swiss Alps.
The report was premedited . The Goldstone int'l sharia law criteria report relied mostly on the New Israel Fund and EU 's grantees , specialised in delegitimizing and demonizing , in lawfare and in anti Israel campaign. The game at the marshalled UNGA and at the herded Hague is rigged. It is a public-relations version of the Kassam and Katyusha rockets that terrorists rain down on Israeli civilian centres. Israel and the West could spend billions of dollars developing sophisticated missiles and "kinetic interceptors" to shoot them down, hoping that one day the world will understand that the bad guys are the ones launching rockets at schoolyards and hospitals, And not the soldiers counter-shooting at terrorists rocket-launching squads who position themselves inside schoolyards and hospitals in order to make their next fabrication more plausible. But just as it is much easier to build and launch Kassams than to build and launch Patriot missiles, so too is it much easier to manufacture demonisation and deligitimation claims than it is to refute them. The repeat of all that sheer volume lies makes most people believe that where there's smoke, there's usually fire somewhere nearby .
and go its own way & strengthen judaism and serve its people.. There is no end to the like of Goldstone ! High principles that see only itself ! Their high moral grounds are in the cloud ! They defend the un-defendable as it comes nearer to their fictitious imagination. Israel is a reality. Its only problem, Israel inherited the world's hate of the Jews !
...was the bitter lament of the thousands who had remained homeless, with broken lives, with immense personal bereavement for dear ones lost forever...
Burston: "The Goldstone Report is, indeed, deeply flawed." That is pontification i.e. a proposition that is stated as a self-evident truth. CJK: "indeed, the goldstone report is deeply flawed." Cipora sees a pontification, and so she immediately accepts it as being self-evidently true. CJK: "since the goldstone report is deeply flawed, it must be rejected." She then uses the "fact" that she accepts Burston's pontification as being self-evidently true to then pronounce her own pontification. So she has reached an "inevitable" conclusion that is based **entirely** on the idea that Burston's original statement is true, and she accepts it as being true because it is self-evident to her that it is true. Gosh, that's one mighty impressive house of cards. Mind you, what if Burston is wrong i.e. the report survives any amount of scrutiny? After all, it's still standing, and that's not from any lack of trying by its detractors.
Bradley Burston------always your most perceptive writer
... report than Goldstone ! Gladstone report was what hamas wanted by sending their rockets on Israel. Goldstone answered their prayer !
These are acts of war that these terrorists are committing . Terrorists are not worthy of our constitutional rights . Treating this like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at great risk because that's not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this . They know we're at war, and to win that war we certainly don't need a lecture a la Goldstone int'l Sharia Law criteria .
Was not that many/ most Israelis somehow justified the brutal devastation of Gazans, without addressing the reasonable grievances of Palestinians. Nor that a good number probably now prefer the war was conducted differently if at all, if only for the effect on Israel's reputation that they belatedly realise has happened. (for this Goldstone is the messenger, rather than the cause- the damage had already been done.) The bizarre thing was that at the time, on seeing the davastation in Gaza, hearing the body count of families rising rapidly, of seeing the white phosphorous and hearing the blatant lies of the Israeli government, it did not occur to Israelis that this would do irreparable damage to their reputation. I think Barak started to get it a couple of weeks in, but Livni and others took another year, and still probably don't really get it.
Quote "End the siege of Gaza" . They can always exit from where Goldstone entered : Egypt-Rafah Gates .
DELETED BY MODERATOR
i had written many posts pointing out the flaws and even lies in the goldstone report. many of those posts were put out, some were not. i do not keep my posts which i write directly on response post. maybe i shall try to recreate them but not now. i have to log off.
Like a hole in the head !
You have been having rockets fired at you in San Diego California? How did I miss that news?
to simply say, "it's flawed because i said it is", doesn't mean much. doesn't matter WHO says it. so IF the report is indeed flawed, then SHOW that it's flawed! and that's pretty much what the report itself has asked of israel; isn't it? it recommends that israel and hamas form independent investigations into the allegations. if they are shown by an independent investigative body to be unfounded; fine. but if they're shown to have substance; then FIX the problems that allowed for them to take place. and forget about hamas cipora, what IT does is irrelevant to israel. we both know they'll not investigate anything, and even if they eventually do, it'll be an obvious facade. but right now they're brushing it off with all the credibility in the world; because that's what israel doing. hamas is a terrorist org...yet on this issue they are on even keel with israel because of that. but hamas is hamas, and israel is israel...and there should be a CLEAR distinction!
DELETED BY MODERATOR
"None of us is perfect. No country in the world is perfect. The trouble is that in war, we have to believe we are perfect, or near-perfect in order to commit to the fight as much as possible." Maybe we just have to believe that we are sick of having rockets fired upon us for 8 years and that enough is enough... Plus, if our enemies are firing those rockets from civilian areas, we have to take a tough stance and realize we are not fighting a conventional war, but we have to do what we have to do, even though it's ugly. You're not very well in touch with how things work on this planet that you live on, are you? You've got some sort of airy-fairy utopia between the ears which simply doesn't translate into reality.
exactly. hamas wants to see israel exterminated. yet not one word in the goldstone report was said about the odious aim of hamas to see israel exterminated. how can international jurists write a report on the gaza operation without mentioning once that hamas wants to exterminate israel. the intention of hamas proves conclusively that it is not a resistance organisation but a genocidal organisation.
We know what happens in Gaza because our boys server there, come home and tell us. We have no illusions, war is war. Its not pretty, and people get killed. But Israel has a responsibilty to defend us, and while I weep for another's child, I have the right to protect mine. The press, much like yourself have a masochistic approach to anything that criticizes Israel. And that's fine, for we're a democratic nation. But for you to join in the persecution of us as a nation, and say that its healthy for us to call ourselves murderers and believe we have no right to be here just goes to perpetuate the hysteria. This article is hysterical, and its only shock value is that provided by an author that can't see beyond the trees. Who himself has become so absorbed in the accusations and criticism that as opposed to weighing them with other events and wars in the world to understand how proportionate they really are, thinks that they can only be weighed against Jewish values. I'm very disappointed.
indeed, the goldstone report is deeply flawed. since the goldstone report is deeply flawed, it must be rejected. international law, if it is to be respected and accepted, cannot be based on deeply flawed reports written by so-called international jurists who do not abide by rules of evidence and who do not observe the applicable laws. international law is only as good as the judges who interpret and apply the law. shoddy reports will not do.
Let them live normal lives, not just exist in the world's biggest prison. That would be one way of starting anew.
Israel needs the Goldstone report like the world needs a space station on Mars. I hope for the day when the world uses morality and ethics to find the truth for altruistic purposes. The goldstone report is morally provacative at best and a moral pervsion at worst.
Mike #1... 'covenants-with-G*d' are an escape-hatch, a blaspheny...
None of us is perfect. No country in the world is perfect. The trouble is that in war, we have to believe we are perfect, or near-perfect in order to commit to the fight as much as possible. In most countries, wars are short and there is time for more balanced reflection afterwards. However, Israel has been in a state of almost constant war for over 60 years. This has produced in Israel a cast-iron narrative that Israel is perfect or near-perfect and all its enemies are completely wrong or almost completely wrong. What Goldstone has said, and why Israel and Israel's supporters have fought it so hard, is that this cast-iron narrative is a lie and that Israel needs to reflect now on how it treats and has treated the Palestinians. Not only would this help Israel, it would hugely help the cause of peace in the Middle East. And what Israel needs now to hear from the US, is not blind reassurance that 'You've done nothing wrong'. It needs to hear 'Yes, time to reflect.'
What DRECK ! Israel is eternal because of its covenent with G-d. Am Yisroel Chai !!!