Well, I know that the Sunnis hate the Shiites about as much as they hate the Jews, and vice versa. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that, given their history of meddling in Afghanistan, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, that the Iranians will use whatever power they can to exert hegemony over the entire region. Something the Sunni states will never tolerate.
Gaza the Second Holocaust
Jan 14th, 2009 by kawther.salam
Angry demonstrators, doctors, Palestinians, Iraqis, Turks etc… chanted for two hours under snow in front of the Israeli embassy in Vienna: “Gaza the second Holocaust- Gaza der Zweite Holocaust”, “Down, down Israel”, “Children killer Israel - Kinder Mörder Israel”, “Women killer Israel - Frauen Mörder Israel”, “Israeli terrorists”, “Stop the massacre in Palestine- Stop das Massaker in Pälestina”, “Leave Gaza live, free Gaza- Lass Gaza lebnen lass frei”. “Israeli Ambassador out, out of Vienna”, “Barak, Israel, soldiers how many child you killed today - Barak Kama Yaladiem Haragta Ha yom” …
The Austrian police blocked the main street to the Israeli Embassy with metal barriers, but they did not bar the demonstrators from standing before the barriers expressing their anger against the ongoing Israeli massacres in Gaza.
Amir Zidan, the director of Islamic Institute in Vienna, said that “we are here demonstrating against the Israeli war crimes in Gaza, we are not demonstrating against the Jews. The Jews are human beings just like us. We are demonstrating against the daily murders of Palestinian children, women, and the silence of International community”.
He said that in 19 days of Israeli war crimes and strikes in Gaza, complete families were murderd, 1013 Palestinians were murdered, half of them children and women and the rest mostly civilians, and 4650 were injured, half of them in critical conditions. Thousands of houses were destroyed while there were people inside. What did the Europe do to stop this massacre? What does the international community do to stop this massacre? What did the UN do to stop the Israeli violations of it’s resolutions?
During this demonstration as well as previous ones, there were not participants from the Austrian political parties. The green party claimed that they did not receive an invitation from the organizers, and that they had been demonstrating in Graz against the ongoing crimes in Gaza together with Palestinians, after they were invited by the organizers in that city. The green Party sent me a mail:
Dear Mr. Kawther,
Political parties were definitely not invited by the organisers of the demonstration last Saturday in Vienna. The Greens in Styria have participated in the Saturday demonstration in Graz. MP Ulrike Lunacek, the Speaker for Foreign Affairs, has already issued a statement on Gaza on December 30.
Please find Ms Lunacek’s statement as well as the Position of the Greens on Gaza (both in German) below for your information.
Yours sincerely,
The Austrian Green Party
Jan 14th, 2009 by kawther.salam
Angry demonstrators, doctors, Palestinians, Iraqis, Turks etc… chanted for two hours under snow in front of the Israeli embassy in Vienna: “Gaza the second Holocaust- Gaza der Zweite Holocaust”, “Down, down Israel”, “Children killer Israel - Kinder Mörder Israel”, “Women killer Israel - Frauen Mörder Israel”, “Israeli terrorists”, “Stop the massacre in Palestine- Stop das Massaker in Pälestina”, “Leave Gaza live, free Gaza- Lass Gaza lebnen lass frei”. “Israeli Ambassador out, out of Vienna”, “Barak, Israel, soldiers how many child you killed today - Barak Kama Yaladiem Haragta Ha yom” …
The Austrian police blocked the main street to the Israeli Embassy with metal barriers, but they did not bar the demonstrators from standing before the barriers expressing their anger against the ongoing Israeli massacres in Gaza.
Amir Zidan, the director of Islamic Institute in Vienna, said that “we are here demonstrating against the Israeli war crimes in Gaza, we are not demonstrating against the Jews. The Jews are human beings just like us. We are demonstrating against the daily murders of Palestinian children, women, and the silence of International community”.
He said that in 19 days of Israeli war crimes and strikes in Gaza, complete families were murderd, 1013 Palestinians were murdered, half of them children and women and the rest mostly civilians, and 4650 were injured, half of them in critical conditions. Thousands of houses were destroyed while there were people inside. What did the Europe do to stop this massacre? What does the international community do to stop this massacre? What did the UN do to stop the Israeli violations of it’s resolutions?
During this demonstration as well as previous ones, there were not participants from the Austrian political parties. The green party claimed that they did not receive an invitation from the organizers, and that they had been demonstrating in Graz against the ongoing crimes in Gaza together with Palestinians, after they were invited by the organizers in that city. The green Party sent me a mail:
Dear Mr. Kawther,
Political parties were definitely not invited by the organisers of the demonstration last Saturday in Vienna. The Greens in Styria have participated in the Saturday demonstration in Graz. MP Ulrike Lunacek, the Speaker for Foreign Affairs, has already issued a statement on Gaza on December 30.
Please find Ms Lunacek’s statement as well as the Position of the Greens on Gaza (both in German) below for your information.
Yours sincerely,
The Austrian Green Party
oy vey...The ol' "Final Days" dire forecast on the future of humanity.
Thanks, but no thanks. Read those fables as a youngster, though it took me until my late 20s to fully recognize them as such.
The New Testament is a valuable resource for teaching healthy living, but a rather absurd resource for predicting the future of the Earth.
In defence of Israel
No one can condone the civilian suffering in Gaza of the past two weeks. Nor should anyone doubt who is, in the end, responsible
The pictures do not lie. Laser-guided but blind to the distinction between fighter and civilian, Israeli bombs have reduced schools, apartment blocks and police parade grounds to visions of hell. Aid workers and relatives have removed bodies and pieces of bodies, and survivors too traumatised to talk. On Boxing Day: at least 50 cadets killed at Gaza City's main police station alone. On Monday: reports, not denied by Israel, of phosphorus shells used over civilian neighbourhoods. On Tuesday: 40 children and teachers found dead in the wreckage of a school. And yesterday: reports of up to 30 more children killed in a house to which Israeli troops had moved them for their own safety.
For all Israel's claims to have launched only targeted strikes on Hamas targets, it has shown scant concern for civilians caught in Gaza's crossfire in the past two weeks. Yet this is as nothing next to the contempt shown by Hamas.
Unlike the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), the paramilitary overlords of the Gaza Strip use civilians routinely for protection in the knowledge that many will be sacrificed to Israeli airstrikes. Unlike the IDF, they deliberately target civilians with their own rockets. At least 70 such rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel in December. This was the criminal act that triggered the current crisis. It was as simple and blatant as the history of the Holy Land is complex, and every time that bewildered Gazans are corralled by Hamas fighters into a human shield, it is compounded by rank cowardice.
Israel is an expression of outrage at the Holocaust and defiance of those who would turn a blind eye to history. It is also a country that in 60 years has justified its statehood by defending itself against those who deny its right to exist, preserving its democracy even when this has led it into diplomatic isolation, and building an economy that is the envy of the Middle East.
The same can scarcely be said of Hamas. Where Fatah at least speaks the language of negotiation, Hamas has explicitly rejected a two-state solution. It exists chiefly to promote a nihilistic doctrine of self-defence through terror, and to foster a delusional pan-Islamism with no tolerance for unbelievers, let alone a Jewish state.
Israel has a powerful ally in the United States. Its critics are wont to condemn this alliance as a Jewish axis blind to heart-rending realities in Gaza and to the sacrifices necessary for peace. No one can be unmoved by the suffering witnessed by the Norwegian surgeon who texted friends to tell them “we're wading in death, blood [and] amputees”. But the way to end it is not to abandon Israel. It is to defeat Hamas. As Washington contemplates an opening to Iran, its reluctance to condemn Israel is not ideological but rational. The alternative would be to open talks with Tehran while its proxy in Gaza still threatened much of Israel with Iranian-built rockets.
The Vatican has failed unequivocally to disavow Cardinal Renato Martino's remarks likening Gaza to a concentration camp. It should know better. Those who join Annie Lennox and Ken Livingstone in Hyde Park tomorrow to condemn what they consider Israel's disproportionate response should, likewise, know that Israel is at war - but with a non-state organisation that depends on just such a response to bolster its flagging support among the Palestinian people.
Israel is better than its enemies. That is why the world expects better when children and civilians die under its ordnance. The past two weeks' fighting have damaged it internationally and will have radicalised some Palestinians. But it has also sent the essential message that Hamas is no partner for negotiations, much less for peace. The bitter lesson of this war is that Hamas cannot be allowed to win.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article5484881.ece
No one can condone the civilian suffering in Gaza of the past two weeks. Nor should anyone doubt who is, in the end, responsible
The pictures do not lie. Laser-guided but blind to the distinction between fighter and civilian, Israeli bombs have reduced schools, apartment blocks and police parade grounds to visions of hell. Aid workers and relatives have removed bodies and pieces of bodies, and survivors too traumatised to talk. On Boxing Day: at least 50 cadets killed at Gaza City's main police station alone. On Monday: reports, not denied by Israel, of phosphorus shells used over civilian neighbourhoods. On Tuesday: 40 children and teachers found dead in the wreckage of a school. And yesterday: reports of up to 30 more children killed in a house to which Israeli troops had moved them for their own safety.
For all Israel's claims to have launched only targeted strikes on Hamas targets, it has shown scant concern for civilians caught in Gaza's crossfire in the past two weeks. Yet this is as nothing next to the contempt shown by Hamas.
Unlike the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), the paramilitary overlords of the Gaza Strip use civilians routinely for protection in the knowledge that many will be sacrificed to Israeli airstrikes. Unlike the IDF, they deliberately target civilians with their own rockets. At least 70 such rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel in December. This was the criminal act that triggered the current crisis. It was as simple and blatant as the history of the Holy Land is complex, and every time that bewildered Gazans are corralled by Hamas fighters into a human shield, it is compounded by rank cowardice.
Israel is an expression of outrage at the Holocaust and defiance of those who would turn a blind eye to history. It is also a country that in 60 years has justified its statehood by defending itself against those who deny its right to exist, preserving its democracy even when this has led it into diplomatic isolation, and building an economy that is the envy of the Middle East.
The same can scarcely be said of Hamas. Where Fatah at least speaks the language of negotiation, Hamas has explicitly rejected a two-state solution. It exists chiefly to promote a nihilistic doctrine of self-defence through terror, and to foster a delusional pan-Islamism with no tolerance for unbelievers, let alone a Jewish state.
Israel has a powerful ally in the United States. Its critics are wont to condemn this alliance as a Jewish axis blind to heart-rending realities in Gaza and to the sacrifices necessary for peace. No one can be unmoved by the suffering witnessed by the Norwegian surgeon who texted friends to tell them “we're wading in death, blood [and] amputees”. But the way to end it is not to abandon Israel. It is to defeat Hamas. As Washington contemplates an opening to Iran, its reluctance to condemn Israel is not ideological but rational. The alternative would be to open talks with Tehran while its proxy in Gaza still threatened much of Israel with Iranian-built rockets.
The Vatican has failed unequivocally to disavow Cardinal Renato Martino's remarks likening Gaza to a concentration camp. It should know better. Those who join Annie Lennox and Ken Livingstone in Hyde Park tomorrow to condemn what they consider Israel's disproportionate response should, likewise, know that Israel is at war - but with a non-state organisation that depends on just such a response to bolster its flagging support among the Palestinian people.
Israel is better than its enemies. That is why the world expects better when children and civilians die under its ordnance. The past two weeks' fighting have damaged it internationally and will have radicalised some Palestinians. But it has also sent the essential message that Hamas is no partner for negotiations, much less for peace. The bitter lesson of this war is that Hamas cannot be allowed to win.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article5484881.ece
In defence of Israel
No one can condone the civilian suffering in Gaza of the past two weeks. Nor should anyone doubt who is, in the end, responsible
The pictures do not lie. Laser-guided but blind to the distinction between fighter and civilian, Israeli bombs have reduced schools, apartment blocks and police parade grounds to visions of hell. Aid workers and relatives have removed bodies and pieces of bodies, and survivors too traumatised to talk. On Boxing Day: at least 50 cadets killed at Gaza City's main police station alone. On Monday: reports, not denied by Israel, of phosphorus shells used over civilian neighbourhoods. On Tuesday: 40 children and teachers found dead in the wreckage of a school. And yesterday: reports of up to 30 more children killed in a house to which Israeli troops had moved them for their own safety.
For all Israel's claims to have launched only targeted strikes on Hamas targets, it has shown scant concern for civilians caught in Gaza's crossfire in the past two weeks. Yet this is as nothing next to the contempt shown by Hamas.
Unlike the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), the paramilitary overlords of the Gaza Strip use civilians routinely for protection in the knowledge that many will be sacrificed to Israeli airstrikes. Unlike the IDF, they deliberately target civilians with their own rockets. At least 70 such rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel in December. This was the criminal act that triggered the current crisis. It was as simple and blatant as the history of the Holy Land is complex, and every time that bewildered Gazans are corralled by Hamas fighters into a human shield, it is compounded by rank cowardice.
Israel is an expression of outrage at the Holocaust and defiance of those who would turn a blind eye to history. It is also a country that in 60 years has justified its statehood by defending itself against those who deny its right to exist, preserving its democracy even when this has led it into diplomatic isolation, and building an economy that is the envy of the Middle East.
The same can scarcely be said of Hamas. Where Fatah at least speaks the language of negotiation, Hamas has explicitly rejected a two-state solution. It exists chiefly to promote a nihilistic doctrine of self-defence through terror, and to foster a delusional pan-Islamism with no tolerance for unbelievers, let alone a Jewish state.
Israel has a powerful ally in the United States. Its critics are wont to condemn this alliance as a Jewish axis blind to heart-rending realities in Gaza and to the sacrifices necessary for peace. No one can be unmoved by the suffering witnessed by the Norwegian surgeon who texted friends to tell them “we're wading in death, blood [and] amputees”. But the way to end it is not to abandon Israel. It is to defeat Hamas. As Washington contemplates an opening to Iran, its reluctance to condemn Israel is not ideological but rational. The alternative would be to open talks with Tehran while its proxy in Gaza still threatened much of Israel with Iranian-built rockets.
The Vatican has failed unequivocally to disavow Cardinal Renato Martino's remarks likening Gaza to a concentration camp. It should know better. Those who join Annie Lennox and Ken Livingstone in Hyde Park tomorrow to condemn what they consider Israel's disproportionate response should, likewise, know that Israel is at war - but with a non-state organisation that depends on just such a response to bolster its flagging support among the Palestinian people.
Israel is better than its enemies. That is why the world expects better when children and civilians die under its ordnance. The past two weeks' fighting have damaged it internationally and will have radicalised some Palestinians. But it has also sent the essential message that Hamas is no partner for negotiations, much less for peace. The bitter lesson of this war is that Hamas cannot be allowed to win.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article5484881.ece
No one can condone the civilian suffering in Gaza of the past two weeks. Nor should anyone doubt who is, in the end, responsible
The pictures do not lie. Laser-guided but blind to the distinction between fighter and civilian, Israeli bombs have reduced schools, apartment blocks and police parade grounds to visions of hell. Aid workers and relatives have removed bodies and pieces of bodies, and survivors too traumatised to talk. On Boxing Day: at least 50 cadets killed at Gaza City's main police station alone. On Monday: reports, not denied by Israel, of phosphorus shells used over civilian neighbourhoods. On Tuesday: 40 children and teachers found dead in the wreckage of a school. And yesterday: reports of up to 30 more children killed in a house to which Israeli troops had moved them for their own safety.
For all Israel's claims to have launched only targeted strikes on Hamas targets, it has shown scant concern for civilians caught in Gaza's crossfire in the past two weeks. Yet this is as nothing next to the contempt shown by Hamas.
Unlike the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), the paramilitary overlords of the Gaza Strip use civilians routinely for protection in the knowledge that many will be sacrificed to Israeli airstrikes. Unlike the IDF, they deliberately target civilians with their own rockets. At least 70 such rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel in December. This was the criminal act that triggered the current crisis. It was as simple and blatant as the history of the Holy Land is complex, and every time that bewildered Gazans are corralled by Hamas fighters into a human shield, it is compounded by rank cowardice.
Israel is an expression of outrage at the Holocaust and defiance of those who would turn a blind eye to history. It is also a country that in 60 years has justified its statehood by defending itself against those who deny its right to exist, preserving its democracy even when this has led it into diplomatic isolation, and building an economy that is the envy of the Middle East.
The same can scarcely be said of Hamas. Where Fatah at least speaks the language of negotiation, Hamas has explicitly rejected a two-state solution. It exists chiefly to promote a nihilistic doctrine of self-defence through terror, and to foster a delusional pan-Islamism with no tolerance for unbelievers, let alone a Jewish state.
Israel has a powerful ally in the United States. Its critics are wont to condemn this alliance as a Jewish axis blind to heart-rending realities in Gaza and to the sacrifices necessary for peace. No one can be unmoved by the suffering witnessed by the Norwegian surgeon who texted friends to tell them “we're wading in death, blood [and] amputees”. But the way to end it is not to abandon Israel. It is to defeat Hamas. As Washington contemplates an opening to Iran, its reluctance to condemn Israel is not ideological but rational. The alternative would be to open talks with Tehran while its proxy in Gaza still threatened much of Israel with Iranian-built rockets.
The Vatican has failed unequivocally to disavow Cardinal Renato Martino's remarks likening Gaza to a concentration camp. It should know better. Those who join Annie Lennox and Ken Livingstone in Hyde Park tomorrow to condemn what they consider Israel's disproportionate response should, likewise, know that Israel is at war - but with a non-state organisation that depends on just such a response to bolster its flagging support among the Palestinian people.
Israel is better than its enemies. That is why the world expects better when children and civilians die under its ordnance. The past two weeks' fighting have damaged it internationally and will have radicalised some Palestinians. But it has also sent the essential message that Hamas is no partner for negotiations, much less for peace. The bitter lesson of this war is that Hamas cannot be allowed to win.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article5484881.ece
Neocons and Zionists admit Israeli intent to kill civilians:
Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday Jan. 14, 2009 05:26 EST
Tom Friedman offers a perfect definition of "terrorism"
(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)
Tom Friedman, one of the nation's leading propagandists for the Iraq War and a vigorous supporter of all of Israel's wars, has a column today in The New York Times explaining and praising the Israeli attack on Gaza. For the sake of robust and diverse debate (for which our Liberal Media is so well known), Friedman's column today appears alongside an Op-Ed from The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the nation's leading (and most deceitful) propagandists for the Iraq War and a vigorous supporter of all of Israel's wars, who explains that Hamas is incorrigibly hateful and radical and cannot be negotiated with. One can hardly imagine a more compelling exhibit demonstrating the complete lack of accountability in the "journalism" profession -- at least for those who are loyal establishment spokespeople who reflexively cheer on wars -- than a leading Op-Ed page presenting these two war advocates, of all people, as experts, of all things, on the joys and glories of the latest Middle East war.
In any event, Friedman's column today is uncharacteristically and refreshingly honest. He explains that the 2006 Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon was, contrary to conventional wisdom, a great success. To make this case, Friedman acknowledges that the deaths of innocent Lebanese civilians was not an unfortunate and undesirable by-product of that war, but rather, was a vital aspect of the Israeli strategy -- the centerpiece, actually, of teaching Lebanese civilians a lesson they would not soon forget:
Other than the fact that Friedman is advocating these actions for an actual state rather than a "subnational group," can anyone identify any differences between (a) what Friedman approvingly claims was done to the Lebanese and what he advocates be done to Palestinians and (b) what the State Department formally defines as "terrorism"? I doubt anyone can. Isn't Friedman's "logic" exactly the rationale used by Al Qaeda: we're going to inflict "civilian pain" on Americans so that they stop supporting their government's domination of our land and so their government thinks twice about bombing more Muslim countries? It's also exactly the same "logic" that fuels the rockets from Hezbollah and Hamas into Israel.
It should be emphasized that the mere fact that Tom Friedman claims that this is Israel's motivation isn't proof that it is. The sociopathic lust of a single war cheerleader can't fairly be projected onto those who are actually prosecuting the war. But one can't help noticing that this "teach-them-a-lesson" justification for civilian deaths in Gaza appears with some frequency among its advocates, at least among a certain strain of super-warrior, Israel-centric Americans -- e.g.: Marty "do not fuck with the Jews" Peretz and Michael "to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause" Goldfarb -- who love to cheer on Middle East wars from a safe and sheltered distance.
Some opponents of the Israeli war actually agree with Friedman about the likely goals of the attack on Gaza. Writing last week in The New York Times, Columbia Professor Rashid Khalidi noted:
The efficacy of Friedman's desired strategy of inflicting pain on Palestinian civilians in order to change their thinking and behavior is unclear. The lack of clarity is due principally to the fact that Israel is still blocking journalists from entering Gaza. But this Sunday's New York Times article -- reporting on unconfirmed claims that Israel was using white phosphorus on the civilian population (a claim the IDF expressly refused to deny) -- contains this anecdotal evidence that The Friedman Strategy is actually quite counter-productive:
One might ordinarily find it surprising that our elite opinion-makers are so openly and explicitly advocating war crimes and terrorism ("inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large" and "'educate' Hamas by inflicting heavy pain on the Gaza population"). But when one considers that most of this, in the U.S., is coming from the very people who applied the same "suck-on-this" reasoning to justify the destruction of Iraq, and even more so, when one considers that our highest political officials are now so openly -- even proudly -- acknowledging their own war crimes, while our political and media elites desperately (and almost unanimously) engage in every possible maneuver to protect them from any consequences from that, Friedman's explicit advocacy of these sorts of things is a perfectly natural thing to see.
UPDATE: In comments, casual_observer -- with ample citations -- objects to my characterization of white phosphorus reports in Gaza as "unconfirmed," and argues that while the substance does have permissible and legitimate uses under the laws of war, this particular usage in urban areas can be used to sow terror in the civilian population -- i.e., is an ideal instrument for advancing The Friedman Strategy.
Quite relatedly, Iraq War veteran Brandon Friedman chronicles the truly disturbed warrior fantasies that are becoming increasingly common (and increasingly disturbed) on the war-cheerleading Right. The relationship between that pathology and people like Friedman is too obvious to require any elaboration.
UPDATE II: In response to multiple comments protesting that Israel does not seek to kill civilians, permit me to make clear, again, that the criticism here is directed towards Tom Friedman's claims about what Israel's motives are and should be in bombing and invading Lebanon and Gaza. I'm not assuming that those are actually Israel's motives and stressed that point as clearly as the English language permits:
This objection ("why are you complaining about Israel but not the rebels in Sri Lanka?") rests on the same fallacy as the accusation that American citizens are being "anti-American" when they criticize the actions of their own government more than the actions of other governments ("Why are you complaining that Bush waterboards when North Korea starves its citizens to death and Iran stones gay people?"). Citizens bear a particular responsibility to object to unjust actions which their own Government engages in or enables. It shouldn't be the case -- but it is -- that Americans fund, arm and enable Israel's wars. Those are American weapons which, at least in part, are being used to destroy Gaza, and Americans therefore bear a special responsibility for condemning Israel's unjust actions to a far greater extent than the actions of any other country except for the U.S.
One final note: the fact that all sorts of prior wars, including ones waged by Western powers, contain events that could comfortably fit the definition of "terrorism" isn't a refutation of the point I'm making. If anything, it bolsters the point. "Terrorism" is probably the single most elastic and easily manipulated term in our political lexicon. Who the perpetrators and victims are of "terrorism" is almost always a function of who is wielding the term rather than some objective assessment. Aimlessly shooting rockets towards civilians (as Hamas and Hezbollah do) and dropping bombs from 35,000 feet that you know will slaughter many civilians while viewing that slaughter as a strategic benefit (as Friedman advocates) are acts that have far more in common with each other than differences.
UPDATE III: The New York Times today reports (h/t Andrew Sullivan):
On a different note, another new poll -- this one from Pew -- shows Americans, and especially Democrats, deeply divided on what U.S. policy towards Israel should be in this case. While a plurality of Americans sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians and blame Hamas more than Israel for the outbreak of violence, Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove of the Israeli action in Gaza (29-45%), and a majority of Democrats believe either (a) "the U.S. should say or do nothing" (40%) or (b) "the U.S. should criticize Israel" (12%). Only 34% of Democrats believe that the U.S. "should publicly support Israel" (34%). Despite that, their representatives in Congress voted almost unanimously to adopt a one-sided Resolution publicly declaring America's support for Israel's attack on Gaza.
UPDATE IV: Daniel Larison, as usual, is well worth reading today on this topic.
Meanwhile, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting -- in an item entitled "Terrorism on the New York Times Op-Ed Page" -- examines Friedman's history of making similar statements, and raises this question: is it even possible to imagine an Op-Ed or column being published by a major newspaper that enthusiastically trumpeted all of the great strategic benefits that would accrue to Muslims from the violent deaths of large numbers of Israeli civilians, the way Friedman today did with regard to the deaths of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians?
-- Glenn Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday Jan. 14, 2009 05:26 EST
Tom Friedman offers a perfect definition of "terrorism"
(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)
Tom Friedman, one of the nation's leading propagandists for the Iraq War and a vigorous supporter of all of Israel's wars, has a column today in The New York Times explaining and praising the Israeli attack on Gaza. For the sake of robust and diverse debate (for which our Liberal Media is so well known), Friedman's column today appears alongside an Op-Ed from The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the nation's leading (and most deceitful) propagandists for the Iraq War and a vigorous supporter of all of Israel's wars, who explains that Hamas is incorrigibly hateful and radical and cannot be negotiated with. One can hardly imagine a more compelling exhibit demonstrating the complete lack of accountability in the "journalism" profession -- at least for those who are loyal establishment spokespeople who reflexively cheer on wars -- than a leading Op-Ed page presenting these two war advocates, of all people, as experts, of all things, on the joys and glories of the latest Middle East war.
In any event, Friedman's column today is uncharacteristically and refreshingly honest. He explains that the 2006 Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon was, contrary to conventional wisdom, a great success. To make this case, Friedman acknowledges that the deaths of innocent Lebanese civilians was not an unfortunate and undesirable by-product of that war, but rather, was a vital aspect of the Israeli strategy -- the centerpiece, actually, of teaching Lebanese civilians a lesson they would not soon forget:
Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.
Israel’s military was not focused on the morning after the war in Lebanon — when Hezbollah declared victory and the Israeli press declared defeat. It was focused on the morning after the morning after, when all the real business happens in the Middle East. That’s when Lebanese civilians, in anguish, said to Hezbollah: “What were you thinking? Look what destruction you have visited on your own community! For what? For whom?”
Friedman says that he is "unsure" whether the current Israeli attack on Gaza is similiarly designed to teach Palestinians the same lesson by inflicting "heavy pain" on civilians, but he hopes it is:Israel’s military was not focused on the morning after the war in Lebanon — when Hezbollah declared victory and the Israeli press declared defeat. It was focused on the morning after the morning after, when all the real business happens in the Middle East. That’s when Lebanese civilians, in anguish, said to Hezbollah: “What were you thinking? Look what destruction you have visited on your own community! For what? For whom?”
In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to “educate” Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims.
The war strategy which Friedman is heralding -- what he explicitly describes with euphemism-free candor as "exacting enough pain on civilians" in order to teach them a lesson -- is about as definitive of a war crime as it gets. It also happens to be the classic, textbook definition of "terrorism." Here is how the U.S. Department of State defined "terrorism" in its 2001 publication, Patterns of Global Terrorism:
No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. . . .
(1) For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty.
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. . . .
(1) For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty.
Other than the fact that Friedman is advocating these actions for an actual state rather than a "subnational group," can anyone identify any differences between (a) what Friedman approvingly claims was done to the Lebanese and what he advocates be done to Palestinians and (b) what the State Department formally defines as "terrorism"? I doubt anyone can. Isn't Friedman's "logic" exactly the rationale used by Al Qaeda: we're going to inflict "civilian pain" on Americans so that they stop supporting their government's domination of our land and so their government thinks twice about bombing more Muslim countries? It's also exactly the same "logic" that fuels the rockets from Hezbollah and Hamas into Israel.It should be emphasized that the mere fact that Tom Friedman claims that this is Israel's motivation isn't proof that it is. The sociopathic lust of a single war cheerleader can't fairly be projected onto those who are actually prosecuting the war. But one can't help noticing that this "teach-them-a-lesson" justification for civilian deaths in Gaza appears with some frequency among its advocates, at least among a certain strain of super-warrior, Israel-centric Americans -- e.g.: Marty "do not fuck with the Jews" Peretz and Michael "to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause" Goldfarb -- who love to cheer on Middle East wars from a safe and sheltered distance.
Some opponents of the Israeli war actually agree with Friedman about the likely goals of the attack on Gaza. Writing last week in The New York Times, Columbia Professor Rashid Khalidi noted:
This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about “restoring Israel’s deterrence,” as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.”
This AP article yesterday described how "terrified residents ran for cover Tuesday in a densely populated neighborhood of Gaza City as Israeli troops backed by tanks thrust deeper into the city." It reported that "an Israeli warplane fired a missile at the former Gaza city hall, used as a court building in recent years . . . . The 1910 structure was destroyed and many stores in the market around it were badly damaged." And it quoted an Israeli military officer as follows: "Soldiers shoot at anything suspicious, use lots of firepower, and blast holes through walls to move around."
The efficacy of Friedman's desired strategy of inflicting pain on Palestinian civilians in order to change their thinking and behavior is unclear. The lack of clarity is due principally to the fact that Israel is still blocking journalists from entering Gaza. But this Sunday's New York Times article -- reporting on unconfirmed claims that Israel was using white phosphorus on the civilian population (a claim the IDF expressly refused to deny) -- contains this anecdotal evidence that The Friedman Strategy is actually quite counter-productive:
Still, white phosphorus can cause injury, and a growing number of Gazans report being hurt by it, including in Beit Lahiya, Khan Yunis, and in eastern and southwestern Gaza City. When exposed to air, it ignites, experts say, and if packed into an artillery shell, it can rain down flaming chemicals that cling to anything they touch.
Luay Suboh, 10, from Beit Lahiya, lost his eyesight and some skin on his face Saturday when, his mother said, a fiery substance clung to him as he darted home from a shelter where his family was staying to pick up clothes.
The substance smelled like burned trash, said Ms. Jaawanah, the mother who fled her home in Zeitoun, who had experienced it too. She had no affection for Hamas, but her sufferings were changing that. “Do you think I’m against them firing rockets now?” she asked, referring to Hamas. “No. I was against it before. Not anymore.”
It's far easier to imagine a population subjected to this treatment becoming increasingly radicalized and belligerent rather than submissive and compliant, as Friedman intends. But while the efficacy of The Friedman Strategy is unclear, the fact that it is a perfect distillation of a "war crime" and "terrorism" is not unclear at all.Luay Suboh, 10, from Beit Lahiya, lost his eyesight and some skin on his face Saturday when, his mother said, a fiery substance clung to him as he darted home from a shelter where his family was staying to pick up clothes.
The substance smelled like burned trash, said Ms. Jaawanah, the mother who fled her home in Zeitoun, who had experienced it too. She had no affection for Hamas, but her sufferings were changing that. “Do you think I’m against them firing rockets now?” she asked, referring to Hamas. “No. I was against it before. Not anymore.”
One might ordinarily find it surprising that our elite opinion-makers are so openly and explicitly advocating war crimes and terrorism ("inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large" and "'educate' Hamas by inflicting heavy pain on the Gaza population"). But when one considers that most of this, in the U.S., is coming from the very people who applied the same "suck-on-this" reasoning to justify the destruction of Iraq, and even more so, when one considers that our highest political officials are now so openly -- even proudly -- acknowledging their own war crimes, while our political and media elites desperately (and almost unanimously) engage in every possible maneuver to protect them from any consequences from that, Friedman's explicit advocacy of these sorts of things is a perfectly natural thing to see.
UPDATE: In comments, casual_observer -- with ample citations -- objects to my characterization of white phosphorus reports in Gaza as "unconfirmed," and argues that while the substance does have permissible and legitimate uses under the laws of war, this particular usage in urban areas can be used to sow terror in the civilian population -- i.e., is an ideal instrument for advancing The Friedman Strategy.
Quite relatedly, Iraq War veteran Brandon Friedman chronicles the truly disturbed warrior fantasies that are becoming increasingly common (and increasingly disturbed) on the war-cheerleading Right. The relationship between that pathology and people like Friedman is too obvious to require any elaboration.
UPDATE II: In response to multiple comments protesting that Israel does not seek to kill civilians, permit me to make clear, again, that the criticism here is directed towards Tom Friedman's claims about what Israel's motives are and should be in bombing and invading Lebanon and Gaza. I'm not assuming that those are actually Israel's motives and stressed that point as clearly as the English language permits:
It should be emphasized that the mere fact that Tom Friedman claims that this is Israel's motivation isn't proof that it is. The sociopathic lust of a single war cheerleader can't fairly be projected onto those who are actually prosecuting the war.
The other point worth noting is that for an American citizen to criticize Israel's wars without criticizing every similar or worse act of aggression is not to "hold Israel to a higher or different standard." The U.S. Government funds Israel's actions, specifically provides the arms for their various bombing campaigns and invasions, and continuously uses its U.N. veto power to protect what Israel does. American citizens therefore bear a responsibility for Israel's actions that is not the case for actions which the U.S. Government does not fund and otherwise enable.
This objection ("why are you complaining about Israel but not the rebels in Sri Lanka?") rests on the same fallacy as the accusation that American citizens are being "anti-American" when they criticize the actions of their own government more than the actions of other governments ("Why are you complaining that Bush waterboards when North Korea starves its citizens to death and Iran stones gay people?"). Citizens bear a particular responsibility to object to unjust actions which their own Government engages in or enables. It shouldn't be the case -- but it is -- that Americans fund, arm and enable Israel's wars. Those are American weapons which, at least in part, are being used to destroy Gaza, and Americans therefore bear a special responsibility for condemning Israel's unjust actions to a far greater extent than the actions of any other country except for the U.S.
One final note: the fact that all sorts of prior wars, including ones waged by Western powers, contain events that could comfortably fit the definition of "terrorism" isn't a refutation of the point I'm making. If anything, it bolsters the point. "Terrorism" is probably the single most elastic and easily manipulated term in our political lexicon. Who the perpetrators and victims are of "terrorism" is almost always a function of who is wielding the term rather than some objective assessment. Aimlessly shooting rockets towards civilians (as Hamas and Hezbollah do) and dropping bombs from 35,000 feet that you know will slaughter many civilians while viewing that slaughter as a strategic benefit (as Friedman advocates) are acts that have far more in common with each other than differences.
UPDATE III: The New York Times today reports (h/t Andrew Sullivan):
Nine Israeli human rights groups called on Wednesday for an investigation into whether Israeli officials had committed war crimes in Gaza since tens of thousands of civilians there have nowhere to flee, the health system has collapsed, many are without electricity and running water, and some are beyond the reach of rescue teams. . . .
The group included the Israel section of Amnesty International, B’Tselem, Gisha and Physicians for Human Rights — Israel.
It really ought to be too obvious to require pointing out: to oppose the Israeli war in Gaza and to be horrified by what they are doing to Palestinian civilians no more makes someone "anti-Israel" or "pro-Hamas" than opposing and condemning the Iraq War and being horrified by what we did to that country makes someone "anti-American" or "pro-Saddam."
On a different note, another new poll -- this one from Pew -- shows Americans, and especially Democrats, deeply divided on what U.S. policy towards Israel should be in this case. While a plurality of Americans sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians and blame Hamas more than Israel for the outbreak of violence, Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove of the Israeli action in Gaza (29-45%), and a majority of Democrats believe either (a) "the U.S. should say or do nothing" (40%) or (b) "the U.S. should criticize Israel" (12%). Only 34% of Democrats believe that the U.S. "should publicly support Israel" (34%). Despite that, their representatives in Congress voted almost unanimously to adopt a one-sided Resolution publicly declaring America's support for Israel's attack on Gaza.
UPDATE IV: Daniel Larison, as usual, is well worth reading today on this topic.
Meanwhile, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting -- in an item entitled "Terrorism on the New York Times Op-Ed Page" -- examines Friedman's history of making similar statements, and raises this question: is it even possible to imagine an Op-Ed or column being published by a major newspaper that enthusiastically trumpeted all of the great strategic benefits that would accrue to Muslims from the violent deaths of large numbers of Israeli civilians, the way Friedman today did with regard to the deaths of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians?
-- Glenn Greenwald
- <LI class=buzz><SCRIPT src="http://d.yimg.com/ds/badge.js" badgetype="small" showbranding="0" ____yb="1">saloncom914:http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/14/friedman/index.html</SCRIPT>Buzz up! <LI class=share>Share
We will not go down (Song for Gaza)
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dlfhoU66s4Y&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dlfhoU66s4Y&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dlfhoU66s4Y&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dlfhoU66s4Y&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Israeli army masses along Lebanon border
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=82287§ionid=351020202
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=82287§ionid=351020202
Read the charter of Hezbollah & Hamas
Learn where their money is coming from
Think about why Arafat never wanted peace, even when his very request for his own state was put on the table for him
and explain why so many Muslims can prosper and live peacefully within Israel
The truth? stupid fucks are calling other people stupid fucks. Brilliance at work. Maybe some of y'all better find a way of staying clear of those there mind altering drugs being dropped from commercial flights.
hno:
One people will choose to live in peace in that region, and it's not the people that think the other people have no right to exist.
Learn where their money is coming from
Think about why Arafat never wanted peace, even when his very request for his own state was put on the table for him
and explain why so many Muslims can prosper and live peacefully within Israel
The truth? stupid fucks are calling other people stupid fucks. Brilliance at work. Maybe some of y'all better find a way of staying clear of those there mind altering drugs being dropped from commercial flights.
hno: One people will choose to live in peace in that region, and it's not the people that think the other people have no right to exist.
Again I'll say: IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT STUPID PEOPLE LIKE LIMPROD WHO ARE POSITIVE THAT THE US GOVERNMENT HIJACKED PASSENGER PLANES AND RAMMED THEM INTO THEIR OWN GOV'T AND FINANCIAL CENTERS, WHICH WERE RIGGED TO EXPLODE -- ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT REVERSE GOOD AND EVIL AND DEMOCRACY AND DESPOTISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
