The Palestine thread

[seafoid]

Can I ask a stupid question please? This thread, just like the conflict there, seems to be a constant retrenchment of the same opinions. A bit of quiet, and then another mad flurry.

It is absolutely ridiculous to see the same incident being portrayed in diametrically opposed manners from both sides. How is anyone not on the ground supposed to know who to believe?

So, my question is, "Is there a UN observer or mission in Israel, Gaza and/or Palestine?" If so, what do they actually say? I'd love to hear a neutral's perspective, and I'm sorry, but vested interests on either side are not neutral. I don't want to read what the IDF say, or what some 'witness' who may well have been a participant in an attack says. What do the UN say? And if the UN are not there, why not? Who or what is stopping them?
Apologies if this is Middle-East 101, but no harm to focus the mind sometimes.

Jewish lobby in the US. Israel is above international law basically.

[AZOffaly]

The Jewish lobby in the US is stopping UN observers go to Gaza? Can you point me to something I can read on that? (NOT published by Noam Chomsky or some other advocate of the Palestinian side). Have the UN said this?

[seafoid]

Big story in the US. A museum honouring journalists killed in war has bowed to Israeli pressure and refuses to honour 2 Palestinians who worked for a TV station linked to Hamas.

http://www.newseum.org/press-info/press-materials/press-releases/2013/journalist-memorial-update.html

"Terrorism has altered the landscape in many areas, including the rules of war and engagement, law, investigative and interrogation techniques, and the detention of enemy combatants. Journalism is no exception."

So say the Assads decide Marie Colvin was a terrorist her death is kosher.

[AZOffaly]

Fair enough, and I have no doubt that the Israeli lobby in the states has done several things like that, to try win the PR war over there. However that doesn't really mean the same as actually keeping the UN out of Gaza.

[seafoid]

The Jewish lobby in the US is stopping UN observers go to Gaza? Can you point me to something I can read on that? (NOT published by Noam Chomsky or some other advocate of the Palestinian side). Have the UN said this?

You can start with Gaza 2008 and Israel's 3 week assault.- Israel refused to allow independent observers in to report back to the UN on what happened. Judge Goldstone eventually wrote a report with no input from Israel

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/04/sinning-against-zionism-traitor-to-country/

"Thus did the Goldstone Report, executed on behalf of all nations united in pursuit of truth, become the lodestone that attracted the attention of the world and brought condemnation to the state of Israel. In retaliation for such an act, he suffered the consequences of those who act treacherously to their masters, the Zionist powers that used time-tested punishments of those who find fault with the tribe: damnation, isolation, coercion, rejection, humiliation, and expulsion from his own. Thus did the false gods expose themselves, forcing Richard Goldstone to retract his own words in a blind attempt to seek solace in the tribe that condemned him."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/what-exactly-did-goldstone-retract-from-his-report-on-gaza-1.355454

Then Richard Falk , another UN employee- he has recently been targeted by vitriolic abuse again from the same people because of what he has said in defence of the people in Gaza

http://nasir-khan.blogspot.ch/2013/04/jeremy-r-hammond-zionists-continue-to.html

Jon Stewart on the influence of the Israel lobby

We are f***ing powerless: Jon Stewart takes aim at Obama's Israel visit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w40GxF2WrVQ

American veto history in defence of Israel , pure lobby related

http://972mag.com/american-veto-history-protecting-occupation-apartheid/34836/

Gaza is being made unliveable by Israel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19391809

but nothing is done because of Israel's friends in high places.

Have a look at Chuck Hagel's confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSza30iP6JQ

[AZOffaly]

Is there a UN statement on this? What do they say about not being in Israel? See even this wording

"Thus did the Goldstone Report, executed on behalf of all nations united in pursuit of truth, become the lodestone that attracted the attention of the world and brought condemnation to the state of Israel. In retaliation for such an act, he suffered the consequences of those who act treacherously to their masters, the Zionist powers that used time-tested punishments of those who find fault with the tribe: damnation, isolation, coercion, rejection, humiliation, and expulsion from his own. Thus did the false gods expose themselves, forcing Richard Goldstone to retract his own words in a blind attempt to seek solace in the tribe that condemned him."

Is so loaded with emotive words that you tend to focus on the anger rather than what happened. I'd not be angry about what happened the Report, more with how or why Israel blocked the observers. Are observers allowed in now?

[Ball DeBeaver]

Big story in the US. A museum honouring journalists killed in war has bowed to Israeli pressure and refuses to honour 2 Palestinians who worked for a TV station linked to Hamas.

http://www.newseum.org/press-info/press-materials/press-releases/2013/journalist-memorial-update.html

"Terrorism has altered the landscape in many areas, including the rules of war and engagement, law, investigative and interrogation techniques, and the detention of enemy combatants. Journalism is no exception."

So say the Assads decide Marie Colvin was a terrorist her death is kosher.

So you believe that terrorists (who's day job was in a news organisation) should be honoured the same as a neutral journalist, who looks for nothing more than the truth?

Bizzare world you live in.

[Ball DeBeaver]

Is there a UN statement on this? What do they say about not being in Israel? See even this wording

"Thus did the Goldstone Report, executed on behalf of all nations united in pursuit of truth, become the lodestone that attracted the attention of the world and brought condemnation to the state of Israel. In retaliation for such an act, he suffered the consequences of those who act treacherously to their masters, the Zionist powers that used time-tested punishments of those who find fault with the tribe: damnation, isolation, coercion, rejection, humiliation, and expulsion from his own. Thus did the false gods expose themselves, forcing Richard Goldstone to retract his own words in a blind attempt to seek solace in the tribe that condemned him."

Is so loaded with emotive words that you tend to focus on the anger rather than what happened. I'd not be angry about what happened the Report, more with how or why Israel blocked the observers. Are observers allowed in now?

You'll find that about Seafoid's posts, all emotive sound bites, but very little substance.

[AZOffaly]

And exactly the same in yours BalldeBeaver. Except the emotive language is coming from the pro-Israeli side. That's the most confusing thing. Everyone who comments seems to have some skin in the game. There's no Bill Clinton figure to play his saxaphone and tell everyone to cop on. And worse, there seems to be very little media that's not either naturally slanted pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. It's a shame because it makes debates such as the one here fairly pointless. Seafoid and give her dixie (for whom I have great respect after seeing his Tyrone to Gaza exploits) will give the Palestinian slant on things, while yourself and Mike Sheehy will give the Israeli slant. Black is White and White is Black basically.

[Ball DeBeaver]

And exactly the same in yours BalldeBeaver. Except the emotive language is coming from the pro-Israeli side. That's the most confusing thing. Everyone who comments seems to have some skin in the game. There's no Bill Clinton figure to play his saxaphone and tell everyone to cop on. And worse, there seems to be very little media that's not either naturally slanted pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. It's a shame because it makes debates such as the one here fairly pointless. Seafoid and give her dixie (for whom I have great respect after seeing his Tyrone to Gaza exploits) will give the Palestinian slant on things, while yourself and Mike Sheehy will give the Israeli slant. Black is White and White is Black basically.

Unfortunately, that is the way of this conflict. The war in the media is just as important as the war in the streets, but the fact that there is so much conflicting information coming out just makes it more important that we do debate it in an open forum, where people such as yourself can get a balanced, informed view of whats happening and not just one sided propoganda.

I don't doubt for one minute that GHD's reasons for wanting to help the palestinians may be honourable, but he is giving ligitimacy to a terrorist organisation by working hand in hand with them to break the blockade. That is shameful. There are other far more worthy and legitimate ways to help those ordinary Gazans he feels needs it, without resorting to supplying aid to terrorists. A simple google search will show you Gazans are in more danger from Hamas than they are from Israel.

[seafoid]

Big story in the US. A museum honouring journalists killed in war has bowed to Israeli pressure and refuses to honour 2 Palestinians who worked for a TV station linked to Hamas.

http://www.newseum.org/press-info/press-materials/press-releases/2013/journalist-memorial-update.html

"Terrorism has altered the landscape in many areas, including the rules of war and engagement, law, investigative and interrogation techniques, and the detention of enemy combatants. Journalism is no exception."

So say the Assads decide Marie Colvin was a terrorist her death is kosher.

So you believe that terrorists (who's day job was in a news organisation) should be honoured the same as a neutral journalist, who looks for nothing more than the truth?

Bizzare world you live in.

The Sinaloa cartel in Mexico murder journalists too. So easy to call them terrorists.
Ordinary Jews need the protection of laws, Beaver. They won't always have the IDF.

The Brits called Pat  Finucane a terrorist, you know. the UDF could have murdered Poilin ni Chiarain with that Israeli approach.I think Israel is going really deep into the darkness with this.

And who decides who is a terrorist?     

[seafoid]

Is there a UN statement on this? What do they say about not being in Israel? See even this wording

"Thus did the Goldstone Report, executed on behalf of all nations united in pursuit of truth, become the lodestone that attracted the attention of the world and brought condemnation to the state of Israel. In retaliation for such an act, he suffered the consequences of those who act treacherously to their masters, the Zionist powers that used time-tested punishments of those who find fault with the tribe: damnation, isolation, coercion, rejection, humiliation, and expulsion from his own. Thus did the false gods expose themselves, forcing Richard Goldstone to retract his own words in a blind attempt to seek solace in the tribe that condemned him."

Is so loaded with emotive words that you tend to focus on the anger rather than what happened. I'd not be angry about what happened the Report, more with how or why Israel blocked the observers. Are observers allowed in now?

They aren't allowed in now, AZ. The UN isn't going to issue a communique that says "listen everyone we are hamstrung because it's Israel and to do anything against the will of Israel would be essentially antisemitic".

Here is the UN site with the report

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm

"On 3 April 2009, the President of the Human Rights Council established an international independent Fact Finding Mission 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." [See press release of 3 April 2009 and transcript of press briefing]"



http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/goldstone-s-regret-is-a-result-of-emotional-pressure-1.354841

Goldstone's 'regret' is a result of emotional pressure

At the time, we should recall, Israel vehemently refused to conduct a probe of Operation Cast Lead. According to the strange interpretations of his "regret," 1,400 people - most of them civilians - were killed in Gaza by mistake. Well, only a professional "mistake maker" could cause killings of such magnitude.

To stand firm for two years is an act of heroism. At his advanced age, it would have been quite cruel had Goldstone been prevented, in his own community, from being called up to read from the Torah at his grandson's bar mitzvah. To humiliate him publicly, in front of his family, that's like a 20-year-old IDF soldier humiliating a Palestinian in front of his sons.

It is hard to identify when the breaking point came. Apparently it was a sequence of events: total ostracism on the part of every Jewish organization the world over; declarations, not from the lunatic fringes, but from central figures in world Jewry to the effect that Goldstone, the world-renowned human rights activist, was "spreading lies" about his own people, and he was the one preventing Defense Minister Ehud Barak from visiting London - "while Khaled Meshal, an arch-terrorist, can move around freely," as one prominent Jewish activist said. And so the judge who joined the United Nations commission as a human rights activist emerged as someone who obeys the terrorists.

We can state here: Goldstone's "regret" is a result of emotional pressure - and this time around, not a moderate amount."



Here is Goldstone's public volte face in the WaPo.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-01/opinions/35207016_1_drone-image-goldstone-report-israeli-evidence

You are NEVER going to have UN sanctions against Israel. Power does not work like that.

Here is former White House spokeswoman Victoria Nuland explaining why the US was removing funding from UNESCO after the organisation voted to recognise Palestine as a quasi state. Matthew Lee works for AP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU7osIl8IDI


MATTHEW LEE: Going back to what you said in your opening, you said that this was—is regrettable, premature, and undermines our shared goal. Whose shared goal? Who shares this goal of the only 13 other countries that voted with you?

VICTORIA NULAND: Countries all over the international system share the goal of a Palestinian state in secure borders.

MATTHEW LEE: Why would they possibly do something—well, how could they possibly do something that you say is so horrible and detrimental to that process? How can they—how can you still count them—count on them as sharing this goal?

VICTORIA NULAND: You'll have to speak to them about why they made the decision that they made. We considered that this was, as I said, regrettable, premature, and undermines the prospect of getting where we want to go. And that's what we're concerned about. MATTHEW LEE: OK. And how does it undermine—exactly how does it undermine the prospect of where you want to go?

VICTORIA NULAND: The concern is that it creates tensions when all of us should be concerting our efforts to get the parties back to the table.

MATTHEW LEE: OK, the only tensions that it creates—the only thing it does is it upsets Israel, and it triggers this law that you said—that will require you to stop funding UNESCO. Is there anything else? There's nothing that changes on the ground, is there?

VICTORIA NULAND: Our concern is that this could exacerbate the environment, which we are trying to work through so that the parties will get back to the table.

MATTHEW LEE: How exactly does it exacerbate the environment, if it changes nothing on the ground, unlike, say, construction of settlements? It changes nothing on the ground. It gives Palestine membership in UNESCO, which was a body that the U.S. was so unconcerned about for many years that it just wasn't even a member.

VICTORIA NULAND: Well, I think you know that this administration is committed to UNESCO, rejoined UNESCO—

MATTHEW LEE: Right.

VICTORIA NULAND: —wants to see UNESCO's work go forward—

MATTHEW LEE: Well, actually, it was the last administration that rejoined UNESCO, not this one. But I need—I need to have some kind of clarity on how this undermines the peace process, other than the fact that it upsets Israel.

VICTORIA NULAND: Again, we are trying to get both of these parties back to the table. That's what we've been doing all along. That was the basis for the President's speech in May, basis of the diplomacy that the Quartet did through the summer, the basis of the statement that the Quartet came out with in September. So, in that context, we have been trying to improve the relationship between these parties, improve the environment between them, and we are concerned that we exacerbate tensions with this. And it makes it harder to get the parties back to the table.

MATTHEW LEE: Since the talks broke off last September until today, how many times have they met together, with all your effort? VICTORIA NULAND: How many times have the parties met?

MATTHEW LEE: Yes.

VICTORIA NULAND: I think you know the answer to that question.

MATTHEW LEE: Correct.

[Ball DeBeaver]

Big story in the US. A museum honouring journalists killed in war has bowed to Israeli pressure and refuses to honour 2 Palestinians who worked for a TV station linked to Hamas.

http://www.newseum.org/press-info/press-materials/press-releases/2013/journalist-memorial-update.html

"Terrorism has altered the landscape in many areas, including the rules of war and engagement, law, investigative and interrogation techniques, and the detention of enemy combatants. Journalism is no exception."

So say the Assads decide Marie Colvin was a terrorist her death is kosher.

So you believe that terrorists (who's day job was in a news organisation) should be honoured the same as a neutral journalist, who looks for nothing more than the truth?

Bizzare world you live in.

The Sinaloa cartel in Mexico murder journalists too. So easy to call them terrorists.
Ordinary Jews need the protection of laws, Beaver. They won't always have the IDF.

The Brits called Pat  Finucane a terrorist, you know. the UDF could have murdered Poilin ni Chiarain with that Israeli approach.I think Israel is going really deep into the darkness with this.

And who decides who is a terrorist?   

What in the name of jehovah are you babbling on about? They were both claimed as members of Hamas, by Hamas.

Are you trying to say Hamas are some community group and aren't really a terrorist organisation? 

[seafoid]

Big story in the US. A museum honouring journalists killed in war has bowed to Israeli pressure and refuses to honour 2 Palestinians who worked for a TV station linked to Hamas.

http://www.newseum.org/press-info/press-materials/press-releases/2013/journalist-memorial-update.html

"Terrorism has altered the landscape in many areas, including the rules of war and engagement, law, investigative and interrogation techniques, and the detention of enemy combatants. Journalism is no exception."

So say the Assads decide Marie Colvin was a terrorist her death is kosher.

So you believe that terrorists (who's day job was in a news organisation) should be honoured the same as a neutral journalist, who looks for nothing more than the truth?

Bizzare world you live in.

The Sinaloa cartel in Mexico murder journalists too. So easy to call them terrorists.
Ordinary Jews need the protection of laws, Beaver. They won't always have the IDF.

The Brits called Pat  Finucane a terrorist, you know. the UDF could have murdered Poilin ni Chiarain with that Israeli approach.I think Israel is going really deep into the darkness with this.

And who decides who is a terrorist?   

What in the name of jehovah are you babbling on about? They were both claimed as members of Hamas, by Hamas.

Are you trying to say Hamas are some community group and aren't really a terrorist organisation? 

Do you think civilian Army radio staff are legitimate military targets? 
And has the war on terror changed the rules of war in your opinion?

[seafoid]

Ian Williams on what happened to Goldstone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pjYYr2lZ4Y


Goldstone Flinched Due To Social Pressure -- Plus Great NY Times Column On Judge



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/goldstone-flinched-for-re_b_846083.html

A terrific article in the Jewish Forward today explains what was behind Judge Richard Goldstone's decision to amend his original findings on the Gaza war: social pressure.

The article describes how Goldstone's community in Johannesburg summoned Goldstone to a meeting with the Jewish Federation at which communal leaders essentially indicted Goldstone for being a traitor.

"It was a heavy meeting. They went in very hard against him. There were no smiling handshakes afterwards. Avrom's [the head of the South African Zionist Foundation] opening statement was pretty merciless."
The meeting in South Africa came on the heels of Goldstone's 11th hour decision to attend his grandson's bar mitzvah -- a decision he took only after threats were withdrawn by prominent community members to protest outside the synagogue. Did all this add up to an emotional punch that would cause Goldstone's turnaround? It may be too simplistic to reduce the process to that. But several friends cited what they viewed as the cumulative toll of a stream of calumny hurled at the famously unemotional jurist.



In other words, Goldstone couldn't handle the anger of friends and, perhaps, even members of his family. (His family's decision to go ahead with a Bar Mitzvah at a synagogue that banned the Bar Mitzvah boy's grandfather from attending seems positively bizarre).

So Goldstone decided to appease his crowd. His article in the Washington Post was not designed to repudiate his own report (and it didn't). It was designed to win back the friendship of people whose nationalist feelings were hurt.

This is all understandable, if not admirable.

It is also common. The cravenness of some progressive Jewish organizations (like the Reform movement) in supporting the Gaza war may be dictated as much by social ostracism as by donor intimidation organized by AIPAC. Even J Street, which bravely opposed Gaza, felt the need to praise Goldstone's decision to step back from his original report.

This fear of ostracism by fellow Jews severely damages the ability of progressive Jews to help end the conflict. So long as they are always looking over their shoulders to see what the status quo crowd is saying, their effectiveness is limited.
It doesn't have to be that way. If progressive Jews really believe that ending the occupation and supporting a Palestinian state is in Israel's best interests, they will turn the tables on their "mainstream" friends and ask them why they are supporting policies that will inevitably lead to Israel's demise. If progressive Jews honestly believe that the occupation is a cancer on Israel, they will say it loud and clear. They will stop being intimidated by people who have been proven wrong about pretty much everything since 1967 and who have done immeasurable damage to the Jewish state.

As for losing friends, so what? Doing the right thing is often (maybe even usually) unpopular. Do you think the abolitionists didn't lose friends and offend reactionary clergy? How about the European Christians who fought anti-Semitism in the 1930s? Or, of course, the brave South Africans who fought apartheid? Or Americans who fought for equal rights for African-Americans, women, and the GLBT community?

Progressive Jews need to break with the status quo crowd. The path of compromise will get them exactly nowhere. And it will be Israel, even more than Palestinians, who will pay the price.