‘We care for human rights’, just not Palestinians


by Sunny
27th January, 2009 at 12:36 pm    

According to a blogger on Harry’s Place, the mainstream left is: “meant to be progressive, stand for universal principles of human and civil rights, and be democrats.”

Now, I know it’s funny when someone at HP claims to be part of the mainstream left, but put that aside for a moment. It’s more amusing that for a blog so concerned with human rights and all that jazz, they’ve published two separate editorials supporting the BBC boycott of the DEC Gaza appeal. Now that’s what you call a committment to universal values of human rights!

In other scraping the barrel news, Osama Saeed is an observant Muslim shock! Clearly a menace to society!

Update: A follow-up is here.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Media,Middle East






83 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. David T — on 27th January, 2009 at 12:40 pm  

    Oh, I can’t be bothered to even reply.

  2. Anas — on 27th January, 2009 at 12:43 pm  

    hooray!

  3. David T — on 27th January, 2009 at 12:44 pm  

    No, actually, I’ll just say this:

    1. We’ve published a range of views. One of the views you mentioned was a guest post that recommended giving to alternative charities. And another post by a full contributor opposed the BBC’s decision.

    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/26/the-bbc-decision-the-dec-appeal/

    2. Nice to see that you’ve now taken the view that a Muslim Brotherhood front group, that showcases people who actually actively call for the killing of Jewish children because they might one day become soldiers, is no more than a Muslim being “observant”.

    If that is what you – and your version of the Left – seriously believes is progressive, screw you.

    3. Oh, and as for the “jewish hit list” – I’ve appeared on that list and I’ve received threats.

    But, hey, as long as “brown people” are ok, why the fuck should you care.

  4. platinum786 — on 27th January, 2009 at 1:06 pm  

    ^^^ If you’ve received threats, you should tell your mate Glen to stop threatening you.

  5. David T — on 27th January, 2009 at 1:12 pm  

    There was very obviously trolling going on the messageboards by some opportunistic provocateur, which formed the basis of the Sun story.

    This is unconnected to that.

    We are very aware of the identity of the person who has been making threats against me.

    In the past month, there have been hundreds of attacks against Jewish people and property.

    There was a serious attack on a Jewish man on the doorstep of one of my father’s neighbours a couple of weeks ago, by two “Asian” men.

    Some of the Jews who have been attacked had quite dark skin… is that sufficiently “brown” for it to be a matter of concern for you? Or does their Jewishness cancel it all out, and make it all a big joke?

  6. Sid — on 27th January, 2009 at 1:15 pm  

    Osama Saeed is a very smooth, very ambitious and very politicised Muslim. Shame his politics are nothing more than a complete endorsement of the ikhwan-ul-muslimun in every aspect of their authoritarian anti-statist, anti-democratic values.

    In short, he’s a bearded tit.

  7. Kismet Hardy — on 27th January, 2009 at 1:24 pm  

    You’re setting a bad example. Instead of mudslinging Harry’s Place, thus doing little more than condoning hatred for those that oppose your views, why not embrace them? Shag your enemy. Shag them hard by all means, but cuddle them afterwards

  8. Cal — on 27th January, 2009 at 1:28 pm  

    This whole BBC debate has become an embarrassment – Thompson’s stance is made all the more confusing consider all the other major UK terrestrials have agreed to air the appeal:

    http://musingsforamodernworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/bbc-should-be-ashamed.html

  9. Katy Newton — on 27th January, 2009 at 1:46 pm  

    Now, I know it’s funny when someone at HP claims to be part of the mainstream left

    Almost as funny as your erstwhile infatuation with David Cameron. If anyone should think engage brain before mouth when they’re tempted to criticise other people’s leftist credentials it’s you.

  10. David T — on 27th January, 2009 at 3:01 pm  

    It has all gone a bit quiet.

  11. sonia — on 27th January, 2009 at 3:03 pm  

    never mind this business about who claims the “left” or the “right” – it has no relevance in this context.

    i doubt what the bbc is doing – has anything to do with ‘either side’ – its about an institution flattering itself about its journalism and fooling itself on what matters.

  12. Rumbold — on 27th January, 2009 at 3:04 pm  

    Katy:

    Does Sunny really like David Cameron?

  13. A.H.S. Mohamood — on 27th January, 2009 at 3:24 pm  

    Hey Sid, could you please explain what is wrong with being anti-statist as you describe this Saeed chap?

    I thought ‘anti-statism’ was a philosophy unrelated to all this topical ‘war on terror’ stuff. The validity of the state as primary social actor should be debated and even contested by (some) progressives, surely?

  14. Katy Newton — on 27th January, 2009 at 3:46 pm  

    @Rumbold: I seem to recall that a couple of years ago he thought that David Cameron was formulating Tory policy on the back of his posts. But more recently, this.

  15. Leon — on 27th January, 2009 at 4:00 pm  

    But, hey, as long as “brown people” are ok, why the fuck should you care.

    Yeah that’s what we stand for man, fuck whitey and that includes the whitey Jews and Eastern Europeans whities; big up da brownies, dem peeps are da best and better dan de rest! We be Niggaz fo Life Mofo ™!

    ….

    Dave you’re a fucking prick.

  16. Rumbold — on 27th January, 2009 at 4:01 pm  

    Heh Leon.

    Katy:

    That was more anti-Labour then pro-Conservative. Though he did used to own a book by David Cameron…

  17. David T — on 27th January, 2009 at 4:03 pm  

    Pathetic

  18. Leon — on 27th January, 2009 at 4:04 pm  

    Heh Leon.

    Actually, lemme make a small addition, we niggaz are gonna allow respek to our main Telegraph reading Wigga Rummy The Bold. You is now a Honourary Nigga!

    *does black power raised fist*

  19. Rumbold — on 27th January, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

    Respec’ (as I believe that the urban ‘yoof’ say).

  20. Anas — on 27th January, 2009 at 4:07 pm  

    fo sho Leon

  21. Sid — on 27th January, 2009 at 4:19 pm  

    A.H.S. Mohamood, by anti-statist I refer to the Muslim Brotherhood’s tendency towards a nihilist millenarianism worldview, in the tradition of our ‘akhi’ Sayyid Qutb. Of course Qutb was not quite the Scottish Islamist sectarian separatist devolutionist supremacist illiberal wanker that Osama Saeed is.

  22. David T — on 27th January, 2009 at 4:23 pm  

    I think the MB is much more interested in actually creating a state than in awaiting the Final Hour.

    State first. Final Hour next.

  23. Sunny — on 27th January, 2009 at 5:02 pm  

    1) What’s your view David?

    2) Nice to see that you’ve now taken the view that a Muslim Brotherhood front group

    Who was talking about the group? I was talking about the scary things you attributed to Saeed.

    3) There was very obviously trolling going on the messageboards by some opportunistic provocateur, which formed the basis of the Sun story.

    This is unconnected to that.

    Then I’m not sure why why you’re asking me to fuck off, since I’m referring to that story and the insinuation connected to that.

    If your implication is that every Muslim is a Jew hater out to create trouble, then let’s hear it.

  24. Sunny — on 27th January, 2009 at 5:04 pm  

    Actually, lemme make a small addition, we niggaz are gonna allow respek to our main Telegraph reading Wigga Rummy The Bold. You is now a Honourary Nigga!

    Respec’!

  25. Leon — on 27th January, 2009 at 5:05 pm  

    :D

    *starts plain’ sum Apache Indian*

  26. Sunny — on 27th January, 2009 at 5:21 pm  

    I seem to recall that a couple of years ago he thought that David Cameron was formulating Tory policy on the back of his posts

    Why should I complain if the right-winger is listening to sense on a given issue?

  27. David T — on 27th January, 2009 at 5:29 pm  

    “If your implication is that every Muslim is a Jew hater out to create trouble, then let’s hear it.”

    Am I saying that?

    Even Sid?

  28. Sunny — on 27th January, 2009 at 5:34 pm  

    Well, that’s a relief! So what are you saying then? I’ve been threatened by Hindu, Muslim and Sikh nutjobs… and BNP sympathisers to boot.

    Does that make the ‘Jewish hit-list’ story any more truthful?

  29. Katy Newton — on 27th January, 2009 at 5:36 pm  

    Why should I complain if the right-winger is listening to sense on a given issue?

    And in June 2008 you announced that every brown person should vote Tory. But perhaps that’s what the mainstream left is doing nowadays. Voting Tory. :-D

  30. Sunny — on 27th January, 2009 at 5:53 pm  

    And in June 2008 you announced that every brown person should vote Tory. But perhaps that’s what the mainstream left is doing nowadays. Voting Tory

    If you think brown people are on the left, then I’m afraid you’ve got it quite wrong. Most are socially conservative and naturally right-wingers.

    Yup, I said it and I stand by it. If the Labour govt is going to sponsor legislation that will overwhelmingly used to target brown people, then why should they not vote for an opposition that wants to reduce the limit to 7 days?

    What that has to do with me being on the centre left is beyond me :)
    After all, Harry’s Place regularly bashes the left and supports Tories/Libdems like Douglas Murray, Oliver Kamm, Nick Cohen and whatever else. They said not to vote Ken Livingstone remember?
    I remember that also had something to do with ethnic issues. People in glass houses…

  31. Sunny — on 27th January, 2009 at 5:53 pm  

    And anyone who think New Labour is left-wing is also deluded :)

  32. Refresh — on 27th January, 2009 at 5:57 pm  

    ‘Am I saying that?’

    No, I wouldn’t expect the HP Consigliere to be caught saying that!

  33. David T — on 27th January, 2009 at 6:27 pm  

    “I remember that also had something to do with ethnic issues.”

    No it didn’t. Opposing racism, and opposing clerical fascist politics, isn’t something that you do because you belong to a racial minority.

    Your reason for supporting Cameron, if I remember correctly, was that you thought that “brown people” were more likely to be locked up for longer under anti-terrorism legislation.

    I pointed out that the aim of the legislation – which I opposed incidentally – was to assist in the prosecution of those engaged in violent terrorism, who were not necessarily “brown” and wouldn’t always necessarily be “brown”.

    Your view was that it was the effect of the legislation, today, that mattered.

    Therefore, as a “brown person” you supported the Tories.

  34. sonia — on 27th January, 2009 at 6:31 pm  

    am confused about the link to osama saeed..where does he fit into all this? he’s an annoying man, all these people who glibly talk about caliphates are.

    31. sunny -heh you’re definitely right there!

    is this thread just a ‘bashing’ sort of thread? seems like it..

  35. Sunny — on 27th January, 2009 at 6:39 pm  

    No it didn’t. Opposing racism, and opposing clerical fascist politics, isn’t something that you do because you belong to a racial minority.

    Funny how people are so selective when they’re opposing racism. When Muslims are being targeted across London then there’s no reason why feeding into the media frienzy isn’t ok, but when Jews are being targeted, then even pointing out that a Muslim bashing story is wrong is akin to denying there’s anti-semitism.

    I pointed out that the aim of the legislation – which I opposed incidentally – was to assist in the prosecution of those engaged in violent terrorism, who were not necessarily “brown” and wouldn’t always necessarily be “brown”.

    The point isn’t the stated purpose, the point is the actual impact. After all, the Iranian prez keeps saying he loves Jews but you still think he’s antisemitic.

    So why should anyone believe the Labour govt that increasing it to 42 days will make us more secure? Furthermore, are you denying it might not be used to disproportionately target brown people? Also, why are you putting brown in commas? Do you do the same with white or black?

  36. marvin — on 27th January, 2009 at 7:20 pm  

    When Muslims are being targeted across London

    When has this happened?

    After 7/7 and 21/7 2005 the British public were remarkably tolerant, with a very few isolated incidents. I believe a window on a mosque was smashed in East London. A sikh with a turban was attacked. A muslim woman had her niqab pulled off.

    I do not see how Muslims are a besieged minority Sunny. It seems they are more than capable of looking after themselves. A hardcore radicalised minority are relentlessly trying to slaughter others they deem unfit to live. As I have repeatedly pointed out, Jews are four times more likely to be attacked in the UK. I have heard of no Jewish plots to kill citizens in this country, ever. Yet MI5 reckon around 2,000 Islamic radicals are plotting at any given time.

    You’d expect Muslims to be attacked many times more than the Jews, given the circumstances, right?

    The ‘story’ about the Jewish hit list sounds like it’s at least part fantasy on the minds of the journalists it came from. Though I wonder if they’ll be any ‘reprisal’ attacks on Halal shops for this non-story?

    It’s fair enough to point out this non-story. But this will not result in attacks on Muslims. Killing scores of innocent people in the streets not managed this!

    And your general point seems to be about the immorality of the right wing press, their disregard for consequences.

    Yet it was the Daily Mirror who printed hoax photographs of prisoner abuse, which may have contributed to deaths of British soldiers abroad, and aided home-grown terror plots.

    The mainstream media are all guilty of such negligence. The Independent (a la Fisky) has accused Israel of using uranium weapons weapons. The UN found no evidence for this. The Independent did not print any correction or withdrawal of the allegation. Stories like this help to fuel radicalisation.

    Both ‘sides’ are guilty of negligence.

    Edit: looks like I’ve confused two different threads

  37. sonia — on 27th January, 2009 at 7:23 pm  

    OOf this is getting ridiculous now.

    for gawd’s sake people! can we just agree both muslims and jews are being targeted and have stereotypes attached to them and all sorts of people who don’t like them? and instead of arguing about who is more less-liked, perhaps they might want to get together a bit more.

  38. chairwoman — on 27th January, 2009 at 7:32 pm  

    for gawd’s sake people! can we just agree both muslims and jews are being targeted and have stereotypes attached to them and all sorts of people who don’t like them? and instead of arguing about who is more less-liked, perhaps they might want to get together a bit more.

    Cup of tea while the chaps kill each other?

  39. Sunny — on 27th January, 2009 at 7:57 pm  

    After 7/7 and 21/7 2005 the British public were remarkably tolerant, with a very few isolated incidents.

    Actually there were tons, its just that the media never bothered to report them. Furthermor, because Muslims aren’t seen as a separate ethnic group, there’s no counting of specific Islamphobic attacks, separated from racist attacks in general. And there’s no Muslim body that tracks them either. You’re implying there were about three attacks. My brother alone, who has a turban and beard, had tons of name calling and got into a few fights. And he’s not alone, neither is he Muslim.

    It seems they are more than capable of looking after themselves.
    What makes them more capable than another minority, say British Jews?

    It’s fair enough to point out this non-story. But this will not result in attacks on Muslims.

    How do you know? Its people like you who play down attacks on Muslims… and say they brought it upon themselves.

  40. Imran Khan — on 27th January, 2009 at 8:15 pm  

    DaveT – Hundreds of attacks so why isn’t the CST highlighting this? They’ said the numbers have increased but they haven’t said the attacks are by Muslims/Asian as you are trying to imply.

    It is rather pathetic that you and your blog can’t even get support from mainstream Jewish Organisations for your views. I hardly think The CST is supportive of your views and their statements have been quite clear in the rise of antisemitism and numbers but equally they haven’t put it down to a Muslim/Jewish thing which your claim that a Jewish Person you know was attacked by 2 asians is implying.

    Its similar to the unnamed people who featured in your idol Melanie Phillips blog. Yes they came to march and were very afraid of being attacked by the brown people because they just don’t know how to demonstrate properly.

    I mean for crying out loud there is soul searching going on across much of the Jewish Communiuty here and in Israel and excellent articles such as:

    “Is only the Israeli narrative ‘the truth’ and all the others wrong? ”

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059104.html

    The only reassurance we have is that you are not representative of the Jewish Community or ordinary Israelis and it is you who need to look and reflect upon yourself and what you stand for and thank goodness not the majority in this country are like you.

    To find peace on either side means understanding the pain and frustration of the other, it means working towards a just peace not an imposed solution. It means building bridges and extending friendship. It means painful yet necessary recognition of the other side. It involves compromise and moves towards dignity.

    It doesn’t involve encouragement to more violence which never wins anything and gains are only temporary. Stable peace is a negotiated peace and peace involves compromise.

    You are part of the problem which faces Jews and Muslims and at the moment not part of the solution.

  41. Refresh — on 27th January, 2009 at 8:23 pm  

    Chairwoman

    ‘Cup of tea while the chaps kill each other?’

    Yes please.

  42. Refresh — on 27th January, 2009 at 8:30 pm  

    Marvin,

    You are our equivalent of depleted uranium ie perhaps once effective, now just toxic waste.

    I predict, to maintain some sort of logical presence, you will probably now seek to illuminate the PP skies like no other whilst simultaneously conjuring up a smokescreen.

    Come on man, get a grip!

  43. chairwoman — on 27th January, 2009 at 8:32 pm  

    Refresh

    Milk, sugar?

  44. Refresh — on 27th January, 2009 at 8:38 pm  

    Good post Imran.

    There needs to be a philosophical division between the Israeli State that has cornered itself and the people that see Israel as a home or haven.

    Its tragic that the last time we had rallies in support of Israel, it was when Ariel Sharon called on the jewish dispora to come together against an existential threat. For goodness sake this was Ariel Sharon who talked up the nonsense whilst sticking the boot in.

    How often can this play?

  45. Refresh — on 27th January, 2009 at 8:40 pm  

    Chairwoman,

    Milk no sugar, please. And a dainty, if I may.

  46. persephone — on 27th January, 2009 at 10:44 pm  

    Imran @ 40 ” To find peace on either side means understanding the pain and frustration of the other, it means working towards a just peace not an imposed solution. It means building bridges and extending friendship. It means painful yet necessary recognition of the other side. It involves compromise and moves towards dignity.”

    Thought this para was worth repeating. Sums up what the future intent should be. All else is just verbal posturing over who did what when & who has the bigger pair.

  47. Steve M — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:55 am  

    I think that the HP/PP conflict may have just escalated.

    I think David T has a point.

  48. Sid — on 28th January, 2009 at 1:15 am  

    Nothing mealy mouthed about that post, is there? But it does my prove that only writer worth reading on HP is David T.

  49. sonia — on 28th January, 2009 at 1:38 am  

    aye chairwoman, a cup of tea is a great idea.. and a cup of coffee afterwards :-)

    mealymouthed? i daresay no different in tone to that which has been written here about HP, so hardly something to complain about ? :-) {i can’t really understand this conflict between HP and PP, i must say.} sunny’s post links to 2 posts on HP highlighting support for the BBC’s veto but as this guy Neil D writes he did write a post indicating he opposed the BBC’s decision. and sunny didn’t link to that, which maybe sunny has good reasons for not doing..but given this post of sunny’s i don’t see why the guy shouldn’t make a comeback.

    anyway.

  50. Sunny — on 28th January, 2009 at 1:55 am  

    I think David T has a point.

    Not sure what point he has, he didn’t even answer whether he supported the BBC boycott of the Gaza appeal.

    But this is getting great, let’s have it all out in the open…

  51. fug — on 28th January, 2009 at 1:58 am  

    amazes me how far Sid Vicious will go to pour random shit on Muslims. it exemplifies his actual whiteness, but not in a ‘good’ sense.

  52. sonia — on 28th January, 2009 at 2:00 am  

    heh welcome to the fray fug, why not join in the general fight. where’s ashik?

  53. ponderer — on 28th January, 2009 at 2:17 am  

    Why didn’t Sunny link to Neil D’s post about the DEC appeal?

  54. sonia — on 28th January, 2009 at 2:20 am  

    Don’t know, but there seems to be a bit of confusion about whether people are slagging off the whole site, the commenters on the site, the writers on the site, i.e. are people slagging off David T and then by proxy slagging off this guy Neil D..dunno, there just seems to be a lot of slagging off in general.

    enjoyable for the rest of us perhaps..

  55. ponderer — on 28th January, 2009 at 2:23 am  

    Yeah, but it’s a bit like watching a car crash..well, watching Sunny slowly self-destruct, at least. I don’t want to look, but I can’t help it. Pass the popcorn.

  56. Steve M — on 28th January, 2009 at 2:42 am  

    Was the Summer of ’67 all in vain or weren’t you guys born then?

  57. Refresh — on 28th January, 2009 at 3:03 am  

    Does this mean we are going to be flash mobbed by Harry’s Mates?

    On a positive note, the last time it happened we ended up with a Morgoth to play with.

    Yes I say, let the Morgoths in. And if we are really lucky we may see a few Mazumadars and a guest appearance from Old Pickler.

    What joy!

  58. Imran Khan — on 28th January, 2009 at 3:05 am  

    It is worth pointing out at this juncture the futility of Dave Ts position which has been horribly exposed by events today and highlights that violence itself achieves more violence on the whole.

    Dave T said that the Palestinians had a right as part of their fight for freedom to fight the Israeli Military. Today they fought and killed Israeli Soldiers only and one died. Israel responded with attacks on Gaza. So who does Dave T support?!

    So this leaves Date T’s argument in tatters as he can no longer support the Israeli response because he said they had a right to fight military occuptaion. So he is silent on the subject now unable to go either way.

    It merely shows the futility of Dave T’s position and that its only outcome is suffering.

    If all those who campaign for one side or the other on the whole sat back and thought that their stupid position has left more people dead because all these people are told to do is fight by armchair tacticians who today and tomorrow won’t be burying their dead and will dust themselves off and carry on campigning based on their positions which in a few days time will bring more funerals. That is the only result their positions are bringing.

    Step back and think if those whose blind onesided support had worked for peace then a few families today may not have been in cemetaries but at home. Was it worth the price of your position? A price you didn’t have to pay? Yes you’ll dig into your pcokets and give some money to causes on either side or for both so the price you pay for your position is a few pence and pounds. But families in the area are today paying a price far higher and more than you but you pushed to to a position which brought death and havoc and your few pence aren’t needed because they come with a bloodsoaked attachment so think back on what you’ve done.

    “watching Sunny slowly self-destruct”
    I’m afraid he isn’t self-destructing, the position taken is the brave one to highlight that all people have a right to life, dignity and freedom. If anything he is more right today because events have shown his position to be correct.

    Like it or not he has highlighted the crass stupidity of both leaderships and that the fundemental rights of both sides to live in peace and properity. In your analysis did you ever consider if those at the other blog have managed to do the same?

  59. bananabrain — on 28th January, 2009 at 9:44 am  

    sunny, i think you and david t are both sensible enough people, but you do tend to go off at each other for the oddest of reasons. here, having read his argument, i think he’s ahead on points. not that it’s a competition. i can’t see, from his article, why you should be characterising his position as you have done. i think i’m ready for a cup of tea myself.

    i should observe that i think the regular posters here are somewhat better behaved, more polite and considerate than they are over at HP. although i thought the guy that was calling you a “munchtop” was really quite funny in a rude kind of way, not that i agree with him in any way, shape, or form, i just enjoy creative, splenetic invective.

    Today they fought and killed Israeli Soldiers only and one died. Israel responded with attacks on Gaza.

    hang on, imran – there’s a ceasefire now, right? so hamas are starting up again by attacking soldiers patrolling on the *other side of the border*? how fecking stupid do you have to be? how fecking insane is this ideology?

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  60. Steve M — on 28th January, 2009 at 9:54 am  

    Are you saying that you interpret David T’s position to be that Hamas has a right to fight the Israeli military but that if they choose to exercise that right then Israel has no right to defend or retaliate?

    Don’t be silly.

  61. chairwoman — on 28th January, 2009 at 9:59 am  

    Steve M @ 56 – Obviously, and yes I was :)

  62. Sid — on 28th January, 2009 at 10:44 am  

    fug at #51:
    Sid Vicious? god I love that appellation.
    Although, I’m more more Sid Viscose than Sid Vicious.

  63. Anas — on 28th January, 2009 at 11:19 am  

    there’s a ceasefire now, right? so hamas are starting up again by attacking soldiers patrolling on the *other side of the border*? how fecking stupid do you have to be? how fecking insane is this ideology?

    As insane as the ideology that is informing the Israeli state’s actions:

    Hours after the ceasefire was said to have come into effect 18 January, Israeli warplanes flew extremely low over areas of Gaza. Drones capable both of photographing and of dropping targeted missiles continued to circle overhead. At 8:30am on 18 January, one of these drones dropped two missiles in the Amal area east of Beit Hanoun, killing 11-year-old Angham Rafat al-Masri and injuring her mother.

    The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) reports further violations of the ceasefire, including the killing of Maher Abu Rjaila, 23, shot in the chest by Israeli troops at 10:40am 18 January as he walked on his land east of Khan Younis city.

    Israeli soldiers fired on residents of Al-Qarara, near Khan Younis, at 1pm 20 January, shooting Waleed al-Astal, 42, in his right foot.

    http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10247.shtml

  64. bananabrain — on 28th January, 2009 at 11:46 am  

    is anyone independent recording israeli violations of the ceasefire, or am i just expected to take stuff from “electronic intifada” at face value, then?

    i mean, if all this stuff is true, you *should* be angry. so should i. i already think tit-for-tat violence is completely, utterly counterproductive.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  65. Anas — on 28th January, 2009 at 11:56 am  

    The actual report is from the Inter Press Service, bananabrain. Ei were just hosting it.

  66. soru — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:01 pm  

    So this leaves Date T’s argument in tatters as he can no longer support the Israeli response because he said they had a right to fight military occuptaion.

    Am I getting this right: you support the right of Hamas military to kill IDF military, but don’t think that implies a symmetrical right of self-defence? You expect the IDF to accept getting shot at, and perhaps say ‘thanks, we deserved that. Now would you like some more bullets, or perhaps some tips on how to aim?’

    A one-way right is not a right, it’s a privilege. It’s Bond, not Hamas, who has a license to kill.

  67. Anas — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

    soru, the West Bank is under occupation and Gaza is under a siege. Attacking non-civilian agents of that occupation/blockade is morally acceptable imo.

  68. ponderer — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:17 pm  

    Anas, clearly you care little for Gazans.

  69. bananabrain — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:18 pm  

    The actual report is from the Inter Press Service, bananabrain. Ei were just hosting it.

    ok, i’ve not come across these guys before, but the wikipedia entry says:

    IPS’s stated aims are to give prominence to the voices of marginalized and vulnerable people and groups, report from the perspectives of developing countries, and to reflect the views of civil society. The mainstreaming of gender in reporting and the assessment of the impacts of globalization are a priority.

    now i could be being a tiny bit cynical here, but they sound like exactly the sort of people that would accept anything fed to them by hamas.

    and, furthermore:

    It is questionable how much IPS manages to reach people who do not share its general aims and viewpoints. Also, increasingly becoming an actor within civil society but at the same time writing about it, IPS may have slightly shifted from reporting towards lobbying.

    again, i’m not saying it isn’t true, but that there may be a little bit more to these reports than meet the eye: from haaretz:

    An Israel Defense Forces spokesman said the air strike came in response to a remote-control bomb attack at the Gaza Strip security fence Tuesday, which killed an Israel Defense Forces tracker and wounded three other soldiers, one seriously.

    The border blast was the Palestinians’ first deadly attack since the cease-fire ended Operation Cast Lead, and came the day before the arrival of George Mitchell, the U.S. envoy to the Middle East.

    Earlier on Tuesday, IAF aircraft fired a missile at a militant on a motorbike in the Khan Yunis area of Gaza. The Shin Bet security service, which helped coordinate the missile strike, said the militant, Hussein Abu-Shamaya, was involved in the bomb attack. The bomb was planted by a Hamas breakaway group identified with the Al-Qaida-affiliated Global Jihad, the Shin Bet said.

    In addition, a Palestinian man, apparently a farmer, was killed in exchanges of fire between IDF troops and Palestinians in Gaza after the bomb was detonated, according to Palestinian reports. The incident took place while IDF tanks and soldiers, assisted by helicopters, were patrolling Gaza after the attack.

    if this farmer is the chap you mentioned (maher abu rjaila) above it seems that nobody is disagreeing he was an innocent bystander, but it is notable that the reports you quote fail to mention any of the context.

    and, furthermore, anas, are you also saying (along with some of the others here who don’t seem to care to admit it) that hamas is entitled to attack across the border on *behalf* of the occupation in the west bank, which they do not govern – and call *that* “self-defence”?

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  70. soru — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:23 pm  

    Attacking non-civilian agents of that occupation/blockade is morally acceptable imo.

    Maybe so (whether it is wise is, as always, a separate question from whether it is justified).

    The point is you really don’t get to complain when the guy you attack shoots back – it’s precisely the fact he is part of an organisation that can shoot back that makes him a non-civilian.

  71. ponderer — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:25 pm  

    Anas, I have found evidence to suggest that the event you’re talking about actually happened before the ceasefire came into effect, on Saturday 17th.

  72. fug — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:27 pm  

    no, i really wonder how you sleep with all that ignorant bile stufffed inside of you. the appelation is not a title of ‘cool’ simply an observation that you are a nasty piece of work. I am so glad that you are irrelevant.

  73. douglas clark — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:43 pm  

    bananabrain @ 69,

    The first victim of war is truth, or some such.

    I came across this whilst checking out Livni:

    http://www.middle-east-online.com/English/?id=30038

    the relevant bit is this:

    The urgency was underlined after rumours last week that Belgian authorities might arrest Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, if she attended a summit of European counterparts in Brussels on Wednesday. In an indication of how seriously the matter is judged, Ms Livni’s advisers were on the verge of cancelling her trip when the story was revealed to be a hoax.

    Nonetheless, officials are braced for real attempts to arrest senior political and military figures following a warning from the country’s chief law officer, Menachem Mazuz, that Israel will soon face “a wave of international lawsuits”.

    In response, the government is setting up a special task force to work on legal defences, has barred the media from naming or photographing army officers involved in the Gaza attack, and has placed restrictions on overseas visits. Today, ministers were expected to approve an aid package to help soldiers fight warrants abroad for their arrest.

    The concern about war crimes trials follows a series of pronouncements by Richard Falk, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the occupied territories and a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University in the United States.

    He has accused Israel of gravely violating the laws of war during its three-week offensive, which killed more than 1,300 Gazans, most of them civilians, and wounded thousands more.

    “There is a well-grounded view that both the initial attacks on Gaza and the tactics being used by Israel are serious violations of the UN charter, the Geneva conventions, international law and international humanitarian law,” he said during the final stages of fighting.

    Though the whole article is worth a read.

    The point being that both sides are bound to be guilty of dirty tricks propoganda. Why should any neutral prefer the haaretz version, which is largely reporting what an Israeli spokesman said, rather than any independent research?

  74. bananabrain — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:45 pm  

    The point being that both sides are bound to be guilty of dirty tricks propoganda.

    i’m sure you’re right. however, one side has a free press and will, presumably, therefore, be caught out. the other side throws journalists it doesn’t like off the top of buildings.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  75. Sid — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:48 pm  

    I sleep very well thanks. If I have one observation about the poison of Islamist extremism, it is that it makes repellant insects like you feel like heroic dissidents. Dream on.

  76. douglas clark — on 28th January, 2009 at 12:52 pm  

    bananabrain @ 74,

    Free Press? That would be the free press that wasn’t allowed into Gaza throughout this spat, would it?

  77. Leon — on 28th January, 2009 at 1:11 pm  

    I don’t think i have ever heard the term, ‘class’ or ‘working class’ mentioned on here, ans you all consider yourselves on the left, funny sort of left!

    You either haven’t been around very long on here, or you don’t know how to use the search function.

    Try doing your research before throwing around unsubstantiated accusations.

  78. bananabrain — on 28th January, 2009 at 1:23 pm  

    Free Press? That would be the free press that wasn’t allowed into Gaza throughout this spat, would it?

    a mistake, in my view, just as it was in jenin, where a massacre was quickly assumed despite the lack of any evidence. in any case, just because the press weren’t in there at the time doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t be able to uncover the truth, does it? that is their job, after all, not to be spoon-fed. besides, there were plenty of journalists in gaza, regardless of the israeli ban – they’d just stayed there, or ignored it. that’s the thing about a free press, it gets everywhere. the question is what do you do with it when you come across it – throw it out of the country or throw it off a building?

    there are numerous probes into various things on the israeli side, a lot of people were against the operation and i expect the truth to come out and, if appropriate, people to be punished. justice should be done and seen to be done.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  79. sonia — on 28th January, 2009 at 2:56 pm  

    well said bananabrain in 76

  80. Imran Khan — on 28th January, 2009 at 3:02 pm  

    Bananabrain – “i’m sure you’re right. however, one side has a free press and will, presumably, therefore, be caught out. the other side throws journalists it doesn’t like off the top of buildings.”

    I see the propoganda is in full swing. That would be the free press which only believes in its own version and nothing else.

    Also Israel’s free press as you very well known but love to hide is subject to yeeeeeeeeeessssssssss Military Reporting Restrictions which isn’t a free press because if it was a free press then taht wouldn’t apply now would it.

    Also just because you have a free press doesn’t mean that free press will actually bother to report both sides of the story as highlighted by the excellent opinion in Hareetz yesterday where they pointed out that all the domestic audience is seeing in Israel is Israel’s opinion much like Foxless News.

    Again this is much like early reporting in the USA on Iraq on the main TV Channels which was very uncritical and one sided.

    It is precisely because Israelis don’t know the whole extent of what is being done in their name they are supporting this and carry on. I believe a few years ago a lead anchor on one of the main channels went undercover and exposed how Palestinians were being treated and the general public were shocked.

    This is why I personally believe that joint projects, business parks and businesses are vital to on going peace efforts.

    I also think that without criticism Israel is becoming more right wing and extreme. The Palestinians are almost there already so things can only get worse unless people stop supporting blindly and without criticism. This we must stand with them regardless of side is self-defeating.

    I am as bad as some in getting too one-sided and I criticise myself first but when I step back and look overall I see the gross stupidity of what is going on and now I don’t want to be a party to that I want to see them come together and live together and I don’t want to sit there and think I might have done more to prevent a death.

    It really is that simple and quite honestly if neither side can live responsibly then its time to say enough is enough and make them as its the only way.

  81. Imran Khan — on 28th January, 2009 at 3:20 pm  

    Bananabrain – “there are numerous probes into various things on the israeli side, ”

    Yes but will they have the guts to report correctly or will it be made to suit a view?

    Its all very well saying there are numerous probes but those probes are more often than not hardly impartial.

    With world opinion so inflamed do you seriously think they will report what happened.

    Lets see the probe into use of white phosperous in built up areas which is illegal came back and said what?

    Despite horrendous injuries to civilians and despite the fact people had footage of what went on.

    An independant UN Probe is needed and that is what you should support and not an Israeli or even Palestinian probe. An independant probe which isn’t designed to gloss over what is going on.

  82. douglas clark — on 28th January, 2009 at 3:26 pm  

    I want a UN probe into this too. And I don’t want either the probe or it’s findings vetoed by the US in the Security Council. Now there’s an interesting test for the new President.

  83. sonia — on 28th January, 2009 at 3:42 pm  

    well maybe people want to sponsor some of us bloggers sat here comfortably speculating about it all – right into gaza and check it out for ourselves and blog it.

    shall we start a pledgebank to raise money to put ads on the side of the buses, ‘send me to gaza and ill tell you whats going on’ …and so on.

    and what if we were to get some money? would people want to go?

    ill go..why not?!

    anyway they must need some people to get that aid in through…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.