The Palestine thread

[seafoid]

Did anyone see John Snow last night on C4 news interviewing the former Isreali Ambassador to the US? Be basically told him he was talking nonsense when he said Hamas were using civilians as human shields and that the Isreali's were doing everything they could to protect civilians. The Ambassador was not a happy camper.

But the lad held the party line right to the end and didn't waver, they're well drilled in this regard.

I'd like them taken to task on the 'Israel didn't start this', well they didn't fire the first rocket, but their embargo and regular shootings was always going to lead to some sort of reprisal by Hamas and the Palestinian people constantly being backed into a corner.

The mainstream media in general is happy to toe Iisrael's line in terms of the way coverage is framed. It's all about the framing.

Since Israel has launched a ground offensive inside Gaza, I don't think I've once heard a mainstream media outlet mention Palestine/Gaza's right to defend itself.

I haven't once heard the question asked: Does Israel acknowledge Palestine's right to exist?

Mainstream media never do context . And they will only get the finger out when the public moves away from the framing - ie the News of the World. Over to Con now for the sports news.

[seafoid]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israels-propaganda-machine-is-finally-starting-to-misfire-9636417.html
Israel's propaganda machine is finally starting to misfire



Israel's 'dream of Israeli and Palestinian children playing together' is somewhat hypocritcal when you look at the 230 children killed in Gaza


To many readers the New York Times coverage of the war in Gaza comes across as neutered or as having a pro-Israeli bias. But not to Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador in Washington, who lambasts the paper for failing "to mention that a million Israelis were in bomb shelters yesterday as 100 rockets were fired at our civilian population."

Mr Dermer is considered so close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he has been called "Bibi's brain". He is also a former student and employee of Frank Luntz, the Republican strategist who produced a confidential booklet in 2009, promptly leaked, advising Israeli spokesmen how best to manipulate American and European public opinion. "Don't confuse messages with facts," Dr Luntz advises the spokesmen as he explains how facts should be selected and best presented to make Israel's case.

It is a sophisticated document based on wide-ranging opinion polls, suggesting, for instance, that the removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank should be denounced as "a kind of ethnic cleansing". Dr Luntz stresses that spokesmen must demonise Hamas, but above all emphasise that they feel for the sufferings of Palestinians as well as Israelis. As a sample of what they should say, he gives: "The day will come when Israeli children and Palestinian children will grow up together, play together, and work together side-by-side not just because they have to but because they want to."

The problem about this approach is that it sounds particularly hypocritical when, according to Unicef, 230 children have been killed in Gaza, an average of ten a day, and 2,000 have been wounded by Israeli bombs, shells and bullets. Israeli spokesmen are now denying their responsibility for the most notorious and televised atrocities such as the strike on the UN hospital last week. This is an old PR tactic, though not one recommended by Dr Luntz, which is sometime referred to as "first you say no story, then you say old story". In other words, deny everything in the teeth of the evidence on day one and, by the time definitive proof of the massacre comes through, nobody notices when you have to admit responsibility.

Video: The latest from Gaza

A problem here is that propaganda that works in a short war comes back to haunt you in a longer one. This is now happening in Gaza. Israeli air and artillery strikes and Hamas mortars and rockets are often presented as if they balanced each other out in terms of lethality. But the most important statistic here is that some 1,100 Palestinians have been killed as opposed to three civilians in Israel.

Despite his tutoring by Dr Luntz, Mr Dermer only speaks these days to the converted. Attending a Christians United for Israel Summit in Washington he replied to protesters who called him a "war criminal" by saying that "the truth is that the Israeli Defence Forces should be given a Nobel Peace Prize". Stuff like this may explain why a Gallup poll shows that among Americans aged between 18 and 29 some 51 per cent said Israel's actions were unjustified while only 23 per cent said they were.

For all the good advice of Dr Luntz there are signs of Israeli leaders getting rattled. Mr Netanyahu complained on CNN that Hamas wants "to pile up as many civilian dead as they can" and "to use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause." Even the best propaganda machine cannot explain away massacres of civilians as happened in Lebanon at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and at Qana in 1996 and 2006

[seafoid]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jon-stewart-israel-john-kerry-criticism

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Did anyone see John Snow last night on C4 news interviewing the former Isreali Ambassador to the US? Be basically told him he was talking nonsense when he said Hamas were using civilians as human shields and that the Isreali's were doing everything they could to protect civilians. The Ambassador was not a happy camper.

But the lad held the party line right to the end and didn't waver, they're well drilled in this regard.

I'd like them taken to task on the 'Israel didn't start this', well they didn't fire the first rocket, but their embargo and regular shootings was always going to lead to some sort of reprisal by Hamas and the Palestinian people constantly being backed into a corner.

just to point out number 6 in a previous post by Sidney i think

) This current Gaza conflict began with Hamas rocket fire on 30 June 2014
Times of Israel: "Hamas operatives were behind a large volley of rockets which slammed into Israel Monday morning, the first time in years the Islamist group has directly challenged the Jewish state, according to Israeli defense officials.. The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas hadprobably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more.. Hamas hasn't fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012." The Nation: "During ten days of Operation Brother's Keeper in the West Bank [before the start of the Gaza conflict], Israel arrested approximately 800 Palestinians without charge or trial, killed nine civilians and raided nearly 1,300 residential, commercial and public buildings. Its military operation targeted Hamas members released during the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange in 2011."

[johnneycool]

Also,
A lot of misleading headlines;

From the Irish Times,
Another UN Gaza school hit, Hamas vows no ceasefire

but in the article it reads;

The leader of Hamas's armed wing Mr Deif said in a recorded message on television that Palestinians would continue confronting Israel until its blockade on Gaza - which is supported by neighbouring Egypt - was lifted.
"The occupying entity will not enjoy security unless our people live in freedom and dignity," Mr Deif said.

"There will be no ceasefire before the (Israeli) aggression is stopped and the blockade is lifted. We will not accept interim solutions."

The Irish Times are not the only ones at it

[seafoid]

1 - Israel is guilty of war crimes, and the atrocities currently ongoing are more of the same.
2 - Israel is illegally settling Gaza and the West Bank, and should be forced to revert to the 1967 UN Boundary.
3 - Israel, within those boundaries has a right to exist.
4 - Palestine, within those boundaries has a right to exist.
5 - An external force, probably the UN, will be required to keep each side from attacking the other.
6 - Hamas has fired rockets into Israel, and this is again criminal behaviour, but it does not excuse the Israeli response.

Those points are all reasonable but they are not a reflection of reality. Israel will never tolerate a Palestinian state in the Holy Land.That is the starting point. And there is no point in thinking that Israel is a normal country that just needs a bit of George Mitchell to bring things back to equilibrium.

It's run by extremists and bought political cover in the US by rich Jewish extremists.
Israel is more like something out of the middle ages. Or Oliver Cromwell's campaign in Ireland
The question is how much damage it will do before it is stopped. And who will stop it.

   

[J OGorman]

more valuable time wasted

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/stormont-meeting-launches-dup-friends-of-israel-group-1-6114099

[Sidney]

So, it's impossible to criticise Israel without being anti-semitic! Glad we can now finally close down the debate. Israel is perfect and infallible, let us all bow down and worship it.


http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Yes-all-criticism-of-Israel-is-anti-Semitic

Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic! By BENJAMIN KERSTEIN
05/20/2012 22:31

That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible.

'But surely you don't believe," they always ask you, "that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic?" It is a noticeably patronizing question, of course, in that it is obviously an admonition that all civilized, thinking people must answer "no" or "of course not." It is an important question, however, because of its real answer, which is unequivocally and unquestionably "yes."

The idea that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic horrifies some, offends and mortifies others, and terrifies still more. The usual reaction to it is something along the lines of "how can you say that?!" Nonetheless, it is exactly what I am saying in regard to Israel and its critics.

I do not speak, however, of intentional or conscious anti-Semitism (though it is a major factor), nor of inadvertent or ignorant anti-Semitism (though this also plays a mighty role). All criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic because of hate, or prejudice, or malice, or stupidity, or indeed any of those very human vices so often regarded as the devil's work by upper-middle-class liberals.

All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because of the specific historical circumstances under which we currently live. That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non-anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible. And, ironically, these are circumstances that Israel's opponents have themselves created.

To hold that this is not the case requires acting – and demanding that others act – as if these circumstances do not exist, even as they sit as patiently as a pachyderm in the parlor waiting for us to notice them and, sometimes, when our self-willed ignorance grows too infuriating, murder our children and set off bombs in our streets.

Nonetheless, these circumstances are not complex, nor are they numerous. They are simply these: A large portion of the world, West and East, has come to believe that Arabs and Muslims have earned the right to murder Jews.

Derived from this right, they have also come to believe that the destruction dismantling, and erasure of the State of Israel, and the slaughter, expulsion, and/or perpetual subjugation of its Jewish population are entirely legitimate and indeed desirable.

Derived from the preceding is the belief that the Jewish people in general, in Israel or the Diaspora, either do not exist as a people deserving the same rights as other peoples, or are an evil and debased people who must be slaughtered, expelled, and/or perpetually subjugated in order to prevent them from committing further debased evils.

UNDER SUCH circumstances, it is clear that: The existence, rights and dignity of Israel and the Jews are considered to be intertwined to the point that no differentiation between them is possible.

The existence, rights and dignity of Israel and the Jews are considered uniquely contingent upon their conduct and whether or not that conduct meets with the approval of the non-Jewish world.

Because of the beliefs outlined in the previous section, Israeli and Jewish conduct will never meet with the aforementioned approval.

As a result, Israel and the Jews are, in essence, held indistinguishable by a court whose proceedings are perpetual and whose verdict is known beforehand. Under such circumstances, there is no criticism, no evidence for the prosecution, which does not aid in the process of an unjust trial before a monstrous court. Which is not, put simply, anti-Semitic.

It is either subjectively anti-Semitic, in that it consciously and intentionally aids in this injustice; or it is objectively anti-Semitic, in that it unconsciously and unintentionally does the same thing. The distinction – if there ever was one – between the two is now meaningless. Either way, the result is the same.

It may be, of course, that some criticism of Israel will be deemed necessary in spite of the consequences, and the need for a public hearing will overwhelm the need to prevent a victory of sorts for anti-Semitism. If so, however, those doing the criticizing ought to be honest enough to acknowledge the objective consequences of doing so, whatever is said or left unsaid along the way.

So, it must be said again: Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Yes, it is so because of specific historical circumstances. Yes, it is inescapable. Yes, it holds true however well-intentioned such criticism may be. Yes, it holds as true for Jewish as for non-Jewish critics of Israel.

The Middle East conflict, David Ben-Gurion said a long time ago – and he was right – is not about the Jews and the Arabs, it is about the Jews and the world, a world that is overwhelmingly not Jewish, and thus bears certain responsibilities toward its Jewish minority. If and when the world finally accepts these responsibilities, criticism of Israel that is not anti-Semitic will become possible.

Until then, however, there is at least a possible solution to the problem, should critics of Israel be willing to entertain it. It is a modest imperative: Work toward less anti-Semitism. This imperative does not demand silence, but it does require a measure of self-reflection that is (and I in no way exempt myself) a task of the most supreme difficulty for us all.

The writer is an author and editor living in Tel Aviv.

[seafoid]

So, it's impossible to criticise Israel without being anti-semitic! Glad we can now finally close down the debate. Israel is perfect and infallible, let us all bow down and worship it.


http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Yes-all-criticism-of-Israel-is-anti-Semitic

Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic! By BENJAMIN KERSTEIN
05/20/2012 22:31

That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible.

'But surely you don't believe," they always ask you, "that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic?" It is a noticeably patronizing question, of course, in that it is obviously an admonition that all civilized, thinking people must answer "no" or "of course not." It is an important question, however, because of its real answer, which is unequivocally and unquestionably "yes."

The idea that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic horrifies some, offends and mortifies others, and terrifies still more. The usual reaction to it is something along the lines of "how can you say that?!" Nonetheless, it is exactly what I am saying in regard to Israel and its critics.

I do not speak, however, of intentional or conscious anti-Semitism (though it is a major factor), nor of inadvertent or ignorant anti-Semitism (though this also plays a mighty role). All criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic because of hate, or prejudice, or malice, or stupidity, or indeed any of those very human vices so often regarded as the devil's work by upper-middle-class liberals.

All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because of the specific historical circumstances under which we currently live. That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non-anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible. And, ironically, these are circumstances that Israel's opponents have themselves created.

To hold that this is not the case requires acting – and demanding that others act – as if these circumstances do not exist, even as they sit as patiently as a pachyderm in the parlor waiting for us to notice them and, sometimes, when our self-willed ignorance grows too infuriating, murder our children and set off bombs in our streets.

Nonetheless, these circumstances are not complex, nor are they numerous. They are simply these: A large portion of the world, West and East, has come to believe that Arabs and Muslims have earned the right to murder Jews.

Derived from this right, they have also come to believe that the destruction dismantling, and erasure of the State of Israel, and the slaughter, expulsion, and/or perpetual subjugation of its Jewish population are entirely legitimate and indeed desirable.

Derived from the preceding is the belief that the Jewish people in general, in Israel or the Diaspora, either do not exist as a people deserving the same rights as other peoples, or are an evil and debased people who must be slaughtered, expelled, and/or perpetually subjugated in order to prevent them from committing further debased evils.

UNDER SUCH circumstances, it is clear that: The existence, rights and dignity of Israel and the Jews are considered to be intertwined to the point that no differentiation between them is possible.

The existence, rights and dignity of Israel and the Jews are considered uniquely contingent upon their conduct and whether or not that conduct meets with the approval of the non-Jewish world.

Because of the beliefs outlined in the previous section, Israeli and Jewish conduct will never meet with the aforementioned approval.

As a result, Israel and the Jews are, in essence, held indistinguishable by a court whose proceedings are perpetual and whose verdict is known beforehand. Under such circumstances, there is no criticism, no evidence for the prosecution, which does not aid in the process of an unjust trial before a monstrous court. Which is not, put simply, anti-Semitic.

It is either subjectively anti-Semitic, in that it consciously and intentionally aids in this injustice; or it is objectively anti-Semitic, in that it unconsciously and unintentionally does the same thing. The distinction – if there ever was one – between the two is now meaningless. Either way, the result is the same.

It may be, of course, that some criticism of Israel will be deemed necessary in spite of the consequences, and the need for a public hearing will overwhelm the need to prevent a victory of sorts for anti-Semitism. If so, however, those doing the criticizing ought to be honest enough to acknowledge the objective consequences of doing so, whatever is said or left unsaid along the way.

So, it must be said again: Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Yes, it is so because of specific historical circumstances. Yes, it is inescapable. Yes, it holds true however well-intentioned such criticism may be. Yes, it holds as true for Jewish as for non-Jewish critics of Israel.

The Middle East conflict, David Ben-Gurion said a long time ago – and he was right – is not about the Jews and the Arabs, it is about the Jews and the world, a world that is overwhelmingly not Jewish, and thus bears certain responsibilities toward its Jewish minority. If and when the world finally accepts these responsibilities, criticism of Israel that is not anti-Semitic will become possible.

Until then, however, there is at least a possible solution to the problem, should critics of Israel be willing to entertain it. It is a modest imperative: Work toward less anti-Semitism. This imperative does not demand silence, but it does require a measure of self-reflection that is (and I in no way exempt myself) a task of the most supreme difficulty for us all.

The writer is an author and editor lying in Tel Aviv.

[armaghniac]

One thing is certain, along with the many tragic physical casualties of this conflict, the English language is also a casualty, or at least the concept that words have any generally accepted meaning.

[Keyser soze]

So, it's impossible to criticise Israel without being anti-semitic! Glad we can now finally close down the debate. Israel is perfect and infallible, let us all bow down and worship it.


http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Yes-all-criticism-of-Israel-is-anti-Semitic

Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic! By BENJAMIN KERSTEIN
05/20/2012 22:31

That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible.

'But surely you don't believe," they always ask you, "that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic?" It is a noticeably patronizing question, of course, in that it is obviously an admonition that all civilized, thinking people must answer "no" or "of course not." It is an important question, however, because of its real answer, which is unequivocally and unquestionably "yes."

The idea that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic horrifies some, offends and mortifies others, and terrifies still more. The usual reaction to it is something along the lines of "how can you say that?!" Nonetheless, it is exactly what I am saying in regard to Israel and its critics.

I do not speak, however, of intentional or conscious anti-Semitism (though it is a major factor), nor of inadvertent or ignorant anti-Semitism (though this also plays a mighty role). All criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic because of hate, or prejudice, or malice, or stupidity, or indeed any of those very human vices so often regarded as the devil's work by upper-middle-class liberals.

All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because of the specific historical circumstances under which we currently live. That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non-anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible. And, ironically, these are circumstances that Israel's opponents have themselves created.

To hold that this is not the case requires acting – and demanding that others act – as if these circumstances do not exist, even as they sit as patiently as a pachyderm in the parlor waiting for us to notice them and, sometimes, when our self-willed ignorance grows too infuriating, murder our children and set off bombs in our streets.

Nonetheless, these circumstances are not complex, nor are they numerous. They are simply these: A large portion of the world, West and East, has come to believe that Arabs and Muslims have earned the right to murder Jews.

Derived from this right, they have also come to believe that the destruction dismantling, and erasure of the State of Israel, and the slaughter, expulsion, and/or perpetual subjugation of its Jewish population are entirely legitimate and indeed desirable.

Derived from the preceding is the belief that the Jewish people in general, in Israel or the Diaspora, either do not exist as a people deserving the same rights as other peoples, or are an evil and debased people who must be slaughtered, expelled, and/or perpetually subjugated in order to prevent them from committing further debased evils.

UNDER SUCH circumstances, it is clear that: The existence, rights and dignity of Israel and the Jews are considered to be intertwined to the point that no differentiation between them is possible.

The existence, rights and dignity of Israel and the Jews are considered uniquely contingent upon their conduct and whether or not that conduct meets with the approval of the non-Jewish world.

Because of the beliefs outlined in the previous section, Israeli and Jewish conduct will never meet with the aforementioned approval.

As a result, Israel and the Jews are, in essence, held indistinguishable by a court whose proceedings are perpetual and whose verdict is known beforehand. Under such circumstances, there is no criticism, no evidence for the prosecution, which does not aid in the process of an unjust trial before a monstrous court. Which is not, put simply, anti-Semitic.

It is either subjectively anti-Semitic, in that it consciously and intentionally aids in this injustice; or it is objectively anti-Semitic, in that it unconsciously and unintentionally does the same thing. The distinction – if there ever was one – between the two is now meaningless. Either way, the result is the same.

It may be, of course, that some criticism of Israel will be deemed necessary in spite of the consequences, and the need for a public hearing will overwhelm the need to prevent a victory of sorts for anti-Semitism. If so, however, those doing the criticizing ought to be honest enough to acknowledge the objective consequences of doing so, whatever is said or left unsaid along the way.

So, it must be said again: Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Yes, it is so because of specific historical circumstances. Yes, it is inescapable. Yes, it holds true however well-intentioned such criticism may be. Yes, it holds as true for Jewish as for non-Jewish critics of Israel.

The Middle East conflict, David Ben-Gurion said a long time ago – and he was right – is not about the Jews and the Arabs, it is about the Jews and the world, a world that is overwhelmingly not Jewish, and thus bears certain responsibilities toward its Jewish minority. If and when the world finally accepts these responsibilities, criticism of Israel that is not anti-Semitic will become possible.

Until then, however, there is at least a possible solution to the problem, should critics of Israel be willing to entertain it. It is a modest imperative: Work toward less anti-Semitism. This imperative does not demand silence, but it does require a measure of self-reflection that is (and I in no way exempt myself) a task of the most supreme difficulty for us all.

The writer is an author and editor lying in Tel Aviv.

Completely barmy, I would hope this isnt reflective of opinion in Israel but fear that to an extent it may be.

[seafoid]

Israel is going to run apartheid for the foreseeable . In the name of security, of course. Just like in South Africa
And don't bother talking about Israeli goodwill. It's a sick society.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.607896

A war needs no imagination. We see it on television, know the soldiers and the dead. The tension we feel is real, the sirens are real, and the destruction is measured in money. Peace, on the other hand, requires a great deal of imagination and even the ability to dream. A war mobilizes and unifies, its pretexts are always justified, and if there are no just pretexts, they are invented. Peace splits and fragments. In war there is a winner and a loser. Peace is a compromise that gives rise to discomfort. Peace is never "just." Everybody loses in it, and its profits always seem to be marginal.

Many people still mourn the loss of Sinai in exchange for peace, after the great victory in the Yom Kippur War. It is the same with Gaza. How we lost in the 2005 withdrawal without gaining the West Bank in exchange. But now, the story is different. We need no longer search for an image of victory. Even if we do not succeed in demolishing all the tunnels and rockets continue to be buried underground, awaiting their launch, victory is already in our hands. Maybe not in Gaza, but certainly in the West Bank. In Greater Israel. As happened during the withdrawal from Gaza, the system of connected vessels has returned to the psyche — a system according to which the bigger the threat Gaza poses, the more Israeli control of the West Bank is assured. The more we struggle with Hamas, the more the threat of withdrawal from "Judea and Samaria" recedes.

Ariel Sharon believed that the withdrawal from Gaza would free Israel from the obligation of negotiating over the West Bank. He believed that the Gaza withdrawal would be the "withdrawal from the territories" that Israel would sacrifice on the altar of the continued occupation. He was wrong. In this interconnected system, withdrawing from only one part could not bring anything but disaster. But paradoxically, if Gaza had become a perfect example of a thriving and prosperous mini-state, free of rockets and terrorism, Israel would have had a hard time claiming convincingly that withdrawal from the West Bank constituted a security threat.

Fortunately for the devotees of Greater Israel, the withdrawal from Gaza and its takeover by Hamas two years later gave them the perfect excuse to hold onto the West Bank and never let it go. There will never again be any need for messianic ideology or a divine promise. Gaza provided all the "right" excuses: Look at Gaza and you will know what not to do in the West Bank. In the name of security and because of the rockets, we must hold on to the West Bank, to East Jerusalem, to settle on every inch. Anyone who hesitated, anyone who asked questions, was referred to the horrific show that took place in Gaza. The "trauma of being uprooted" provided its own cure. A defensive shield against peace.

With the blink of an eye that trauma was put to an unbearable test. The sounds of peace-mongering brought to mind threatening noises from the past. Once more withdrawal was being discussed. Once again those accursed maps, the Jordan Valley inside or out, who would remain in the settlement blocs and which were destined for destruction. The Americans were coming again, Mahmoud Abbas agreed to talk, and the shadow of peace began to fire the imagination. Look, even Hamas was reconciling with Fatah, the United States was willing to cooperate with the Palestinian unity government, Europe was standing in line with donations, and the trauma of Gaza was about to dissipate. But then, three boys were kidnapped and murdered. Their murderers had not yet been found. Hamas declared loudly that it was not responsible. But that no longer mattered. A few days later, Jewish murderers burned Mohammed Abu Khdeir to death. Once again — equality.

And then came the war. A bit late, because if the war had begun before the main peace talks, there would have been no need to go through the torture of the talks. But even a bit late is still fine.

Gaza sealed the fate of the West Bank. If before, it had been possible to fantasize about some sort of peace, if for a second the settlers missed a slight beat because of the talks, now they can relax. Because who would dare mention the word "withdrawal" now? Who would agree to make himself a laughingstock by calling for peace talks? What a wonderful victory. We love you, Gaza.

[seafoid]

Israel  is supposed to be a Jewish state.


Pierre Krähenbühl   @PKraehenbuehl 



This is 6th time one of our @UNRWA schools has been struck. Our staff leading int'l response are being killed. This is a breaking point

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has strongly condemned an Israeli strike on a UN school being used as a shelter in the Jabaliya refugee camp, which killed at least 19 people and injured 90.

The agency appeared hit out at a lack of international action to end the violence with the words: "[T]his is an affront to all of us, a source of universal shame. Today the world stands disgracedToday the world stands disgraced."

In a statement UNRWA Commissioner-General, Pierre Krähenbühl said: "I call on the international community to take deliberate international political action to put an immediate end to the continuing carnage."

Here is the statement in full:


Last night, children were killed as they slept next to their parents on the floor of a classroom in a UN designated shelter in Gaza. Children killed in their sleep; this is an affront to all of us, a source of universal shame. Today the world stands disgraced.

We have visited the site and gathered evidence. We have analysed fragments, examined craters and other damage. Our initial assessment is that it was Israeli artillery that hit our school, in which 3,300 people had sought refuge. We believe there were at least three impacts. It is too early to give a confirmed official death toll. But we know that there were multiple civilian deaths and injuries including of women and children and the UNRWA guard who was trying to protect the site. These are people who were instructed to leave their homes by the Israeli army.

The precise location of the Jabalia Elementary Girls School and the fact that it was housing thousands of internally displaced people was communicated to the Israeli army seventeen times, to ensure its protection; the last being at ten to nine last night, just hours before the fatal shelling.

I condemn in the strongest possible terms this serious violation of international law by Israeli forces.

This is the sixth time that one of our schools has been struck. Our staff, the very people leading the humanitarian response are being killed. Our shelters are overflowing. Tens of thousands may soon be stranded in the streets of Gaza, without food, water and shelter if attacks on these areas continue.

We have moved beyond the realm of humanitarian action alone. We are in the realm of accountability. I call on the international community to take deliberate international political action to put an immediate end to the continuing carnage.

[LeoMc]

So, it's impossible to criticise Israel without being anti-semitic! Glad we can now finally close down the debate. Israel is perfect and infallible, let us all bow down and worship it.


http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Yes-all-criticism-of-Israel-is-anti-Semitic

Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic! By BENJAMIN KERSTEIN
05/20/2012 22:31

That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible.

'But surely you don't believe," they always ask you, "that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic?" It is a noticeably patronizing question, of course, in that it is obviously an admonition that all civilized, thinking people must answer "no" or "of course not." It is an important question, however, because of its real answer, which is unequivocally and unquestionably "yes."

The idea that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic horrifies some, offends and mortifies others, and terrifies still more. The usual reaction to it is something along the lines of "how can you say that?!" Nonetheless, it is exactly what I am saying in regard to Israel and its critics.

I do not speak, however, of intentional or conscious anti-Semitism (though it is a major factor), nor of inadvertent or ignorant anti-Semitism (though this also plays a mighty role). All criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic because of hate, or prejudice, or malice, or stupidity, or indeed any of those very human vices so often regarded as the devil's work by upper-middle-class liberals.

All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because of the specific historical circumstances under which we currently live. That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non-anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible. And, ironically, these are circumstances that Israel's opponents have themselves created.

To hold that this is not the case requires acting – and demanding that others act – as if these circumstances do not exist, even as they sit as patiently as a pachyderm in the parlor waiting for us to notice them and, sometimes, when our self-willed ignorance grows too infuriating, murder our children and set off bombs in our streets.

Nonetheless, these circumstances are not complex, nor are they numerous. They are simply these: A large portion of the world, West and East, has come to believe that Arabs and Muslims have earned the right to murder Jews.

Derived from this right, they have also come to believe that the destruction dismantling, and erasure of the State of Israel, and the slaughter, expulsion, and/or perpetual subjugation of its Jewish population are entirely legitimate and indeed desirable.

Derived from the preceding is the belief that the Jewish people in general, in Israel or the Diaspora, either do not exist as a people deserving the same rights as other peoples, or are an evil and debased people who must be slaughtered, expelled, and/or perpetually subjugated in order to prevent them from committing further debased evils.

UNDER SUCH circumstances, it is clear that: The existence, rights and dignity of Israel and the Jews are considered to be intertwined to the point that no differentiation between them is possible.

The existence, rights and dignity of Israel and the Jews are considered uniquely contingent upon their conduct and whether or not that conduct meets with the approval of the non-Jewish world.

Because of the beliefs outlined in the previous section, Israeli and Jewish conduct will never meet with the aforementioned approval.

As a result, Israel and the Jews are, in essence, held indistinguishable by a court whose proceedings are perpetual and whose verdict is known beforehand. Under such circumstances, there is no criticism, no evidence for the prosecution, which does not aid in the process of an unjust trial before a monstrous court. Which is not, put simply, anti-Semitic.

It is either subjectively anti-Semitic, in that it consciously and intentionally aids in this injustice; or it is objectively anti-Semitic, in that it unconsciously and unintentionally does the same thing. The distinction – if there ever was one – between the two is now meaningless. Either way, the result is the same.

It may be, of course, that some criticism of Israel will be deemed necessary in spite of the consequences, and the need for a public hearing will overwhelm the need to prevent a victory of sorts for anti-Semitism. If so, however, those doing the criticizing ought to be honest enough to acknowledge the objective consequences of doing so, whatever is said or left unsaid along the way.

So, it must be said again: Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Yes, it is so because of specific historical circumstances. Yes, it is inescapable. Yes, it holds true however well-intentioned such criticism may be. Yes, it holds as true for Jewish as for non-Jewish critics of Israel.

The Middle East conflict, David Ben-Gurion said a long time ago – and he was right – is not about the Jews and the Arabs, it is about the Jews and the world, a world that is overwhelmingly not Jewish, and thus bears certain responsibilities toward its Jewish minority. If and when the world finally accepts these responsibilities, criticism of Israel that is not anti-Semitic will become possible.

Until then, however, there is at least a possible solution to the problem, should critics of Israel be willing to entertain it. It is a modest imperative: Work toward less anti-Semitism. This imperative does not demand silence, but it does require a measure of self-reflection that is (and I in no way exempt myself) a task of the most supreme difficulty for us all.

The writer is an author and editor living in Tel Aviv.

And so to carry this wonderful ideology and straw man argument to its conclusion the current holocaust the IDF is visiting upon the people of Gaza means that any future actions by Hamas in pursuit of their homeland can be justified and any criticism of those actions is just anti-muslim sectarianism (racism?).

[Sidney]

And so to carry this wonderful ideology and straw man argument to its conclusion the current holocaust the IDF is visiting upon the people of Gaza means that any future actions by Hamas in pursuit of their homeland can be justified and any criticism of those actions is just anti-muslim sectarianism (racism?).

No.