Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Saturday, January 2, 2010 by Democracy Now!
Noam Chomsky: 'Gaza: One Year Later'
On December 27, 2008, Israel began one of the bloodiest attacks on Gaza Since 1948. The three week assault killed some 1400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. One year later, little to no rebuilding has taken place and the siege in Gaza continues.
Speaking in Watertown, Massachusetts on December 6, 2009, linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky delivered a talk entitled "Gaza: One Year Later."
Thanks to Robbie Leppzer for filming this event.
Comments are closed
84 Comments so far
Show AllThank you for this excellent perspective on the US/Israel Zionist criminal project.
The volume adjuster on this video does not work for me and I cannot hear the audio. Any advice?
Go to the Democracy now site or try youtube.
I normally and simply use the volume control on my external speakers and this always works, regardless of what the volume setting is with embedded videos, as well as with downloaded videos that I play using GOM Player, or another player. But maybe you don't employ these types of speakers or you don't have them placed readily at hand. Mine are readily at hand, only needing to stretch an arm to change the volume control.
My problem with Dem. Now! videos these days, for some months now, however, is that they can't or don't play with Real Player, the version 10 and Gold one, which seems to be the most current version for Win 2000, which is the version of Windows that I use. And this also is true when trying to play the streams provided at the DN! website. But there usually is a copy of DN! videos at Youtube. It might take a day or two since the video was provided or posted at DN! before any copies appear at Youtube, but, and so far, I find them all posted at YT fairly quickly.
Actually, I just went to the DN! page for this video and the embedded player in the page with the transcript is playing, so I'll later check if the stream link works, for it hasn't been working and I usually preferred viewing the videos non-embedded, using Real Player.
And I did a search of Youtube for the video, learning that there are some recent videos with Professor Norman G. Finkelstein evidently on the same topic. People interested in what Noam Chomsky says about "Gaza: One Year Later" should also be interested in what Prof. Finkelstein says on this topic.
Noam, one of the world's great and courageous revealers of the truth about U.S. foreign policy and Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity. BOYCOTT, DIVEST AND SANCTION the terrorist states of Israel and the U.S.
Please share for those who don't know about our involvement in these disgraceful human rights abuses.
Thanks to Noam Chomsky for giving his energy to this. One would think that he wouldn't have to struggle through an antiquated sound system these days though!
Chomsky should be given the Nobel Peace Prize, for having the care and courage to use his academic reputation for peace and justice. Most academics are too fearful, selfish, cautious and uncaring to speak publicly against war crimes and injustice.
My guess is that Chomsky would decline the Nobel Peace Prize if offered because he knows it for what it is.
What it is was well-described by Chomsky quite recently in a video in which he characterizes recipients who were or had been U.S. Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. The characterization is rather scathing.
What about Professor Norman G. Finkelstein, and other Jews, who didn't only risk their academic reputations, they risked the positions and lost them, because they dared to speak out against Israel's history of extreme criminality? Noam Chomsky hasn't lost his position and apparently was not comparably attacked by the Israel Lobby, AIPAC, et al.
But as for the Nobel Peace Prize, only disney kids care about this and think there's anything really good about it. Is it Mordechai Vanunu or another very deserving person who rejected the NPP because of the bogusness of it? I forget who the person precisely is, or was, but quickly read this over the past week or so, and this person was the more right winner of all for having rejected this garbage prize that profits imperialists and war-makers more than anyone else.
Chomsky has been attacked by the Israel lobby, including AIPAC, for many years. They hate him like the plague. Does Chomsky have to be fired from MIT before he gains credibility among critics of Israel? And does someone need to reject the Nobel Prize to prove that he's the "more right winner" of it? What does that even mean? If I win the Nobel Prize, then my rejection of it proves I deserve it, even though it's garbage. If I accept it, like the total fraud Obama did, then I only prove how much I like garbage prizes even though I don't deserve them.
No, of course he doesn't need to be fired by MIT for AIPAC attacks against his statements regarding the U.S.-Israel criminality for his words to have merit and be very right, but I doubt he'd be at risk of losing his job at MIT. And others deserving serious recognition should be spoken of or written about, and Professor Norman G. Filkenstein and others are who I'm talking about when it comes to the topic of the U.S.-Israel criminality. Others I'm referring to have real roots with the Nazi concentration camps or holocaust of the Jews and have written and said very important things that more Americans should remember to remind others of. But most Americans only speak of Noam Chomsky, treating him as a God, nearly. He's just a man.
As for the Nobel Peace Prize, anyone who's awarded this and knows that by far most of the so-called winners are war criminals, and criminal for other crimes against humanity, should reject the prize; just like soldiers should reject war medals. Both are garbage and imperialist instruments of deception more than anything else. When Obama accepted the prize, he didn't accept garbage in terms of what the public was to think of him being awarded and accepting the prize, but he did contribute to the fact that it's just an imperialist instrument of deception, and hypocrisy.
If you want to stand next to extreme criminals awarded bs prizes, then go right ahead.
People who care about such emphemeral items as prizes from human institutions, especially corrupt ones, really need to rethink LIFE and what's of real value in and for life. The only reason I care about these medals and prizes is because of the related hypocrisy, imperialism, etcetera.
But we should certainly care about real activists who have been nominated for and didn't yet receive as well as those who've been awarded the NPP. The prize is bs, but these people and what they did are of great value.
And see kcg_nc's post, above.
Chomsky himself has given Finkelstein credit hundreds of times in his books and interviews. He's brought much attention to Finkelstein's (not "Filkenstein") important work and the risks he takes. They're both heroic figures, in my book. There are probably 5,000 people, including Finkelstein and Chomsky, who "deserved" the Nobel Peace Prize over the war criminal Obama, and no, I don't want to "stand next to extreme criminals awarded bs prizes", and that's a distortion of what I meant. I have no more regard for the Nobel than you do, considering its sordid history. So it's appropriate they gave it to Obama. Cheney may be next.
But it doesn't make sense to minimize Chomsky's valuable work over the past 50 years, writing and speaking, supporting causes all over the world for human liberation from tyranny and ruthless violence against civilian populations by elite interests. He's deserving of far more recognition than he gets, even if some leftists "treat him as a God." Trust me, hardly anyone outside the left has even heard of him or knows a thing about his work. He's the most ignored public intellectual in the US, even though CDers and related Internet sites feature his stuff. We're a slim minority.
i liken israel's treatment of palistine to nazi germany
against the jews in ww11! the molested will molest others
in a cycle of evilness!
If we take what you say to complete meaning or how it can be fully interpreted, then it's like saying that we may as well not try to help oppressed and genocided people since once this stops happening to them they'll then do as was done to them, before. So your post is stated in a simpletonian way and I therefore disagree, in this particular respect.
However, British MP Sir Gerald Kaufman likened Israel to Nazi Germany in his speech in the British Parliament last January much better than you state with your post. There's at least one copy of his excellent speech at Youtube. He's Jewish and has direct or family history from the Nazi concentration camps and possibly other aspects of the Nazi holocaust of the Jews.
I'm not sure if professor Norman G. Finkelstein, who is Jewish and has family history from the Nazi holocaust of the Jews, the concentration camps anyway, likens Israel to Nazi Germany, but if he doesn't, then he comes very close to doing so and has very important things to say in articles at his website as well as in videos, probably some or all at his website, but also some being found at Youtube and probably other video websites. One of the important things he wrote, and which I think is a book, is "Holocaust Industry" or "The Holocaust Industry", which is about the real racket that exploits the holocaust and includes, I believe, even Hollywood. Perhaps there's a good-length Google video on that topic with him. I just did a video search and there are online videos with him about this topic; besides other related videos with him as speaker.
And I'm no historian, but it was obvious to me years ago that Israeli leadership, political and military, is no better than the Nazi regime was; and this of course means also the U.S. and its allies in backing, arming, profiting from, ... Israeli "leadership". It's also obvious enough that this Israeli "leadership" and Zionists do not really care about Jews in general; only caring for themselves, if we can call it caring, which it really isn't.
Do psychopaths really care about themselves? Not really. If they cared about themselves, then they'd also care about others and life, the right to life and dignity, etcetera. We can loosely say they care about themselves, but I don't think it really is caring.
Impossible to listen to this guy for more than 3 minutes without encountering outrageous lies. One of the most funny parts is at the beginning (I didn't have patience to continue listening afterwords, I admit). Chomsky is rambling about the alleged disappearance of palestinians into a 'system of secret prisons', then goes on to trivialize Hamas' treatment of Gilad Shalit. Nevermind that the precise location, physical and mental health of all palestinian prisoners are well documented, all of them receive regular visits from the red cross/red crescent, family members (if they have family members in Israel), and lawyers, get access to books, television, walk 3 hours every day if they wish, study if they wish, practice their religion, have a social life within the prison, etc. Whereas Gilad Shalit is denied any access to or from the outside world, his location is not known, his physical and mental state are not known - in fact all that we know about his current situation comes from a short video released in 2009, three years after his imprisonment, in exchange for the release of 20 female palestinian prisoners, where he was forced to read a pre-edited text.
Here's a nice critique on Chomsky's statements on a large variety of issues,
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf
Nice try, but you obviously don't know anything about "this guy".
Socialist: “Nice try, but you obviously don't know anything about "this guy".”
Well, it seems that you too don’t know much about Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky himself said that nobody should be beyond criticism (including him.) That means that it’s OK to do your own research, and it’s OK not to agree with 100% of what Noam says.
What Chomsky is doing here, IMHO, fits exactly what he describes as "manufacturing consent." (A great, highly recommended, documentary.)
You should read Herman and Chomsky's book: "Manufacturing Consent" instead.
Some random guy on the interwebs vs. Chomsky.
Hmmmmm, who am I going to believe?
You rarely explain WHY or HOW you don't "agree" with Chomsky.
Are you capable of mustering the intellectual honesty of actually critiquing his statements on their merits?
Everything Chomsky said was factual.
What you may disagree with is words like "massacre" or "slaughter", because you prefer to put your own propaganda spin on such events, events that dictionary definitions can only describe as "massacre" or "slaughter".
But, you prefer to lie and spin with statements like "Hamas cynically use Palestinians as human shields". When that too is shown to be false, you change the subject.
Read the Goldstone report, then come back and criticize Chomsky.
PS: I know what your response to my post will be. You will ignore everything I said about Gaza, and focus on something trivial so you can score a few points on rhetoric.
amused to death: what? of course, there are thousands of documented instances of israel's abuse of palestinian prisoners! and, as the people of gaza have learned, you don't have to be imprisoned to be tortured by israelis. amused to death, are you, that israel targets gazan agricultural lands for destruction? clearly a war crime. even cheney did not target iraqi farmland, though he did outlaw iraqi unions. amused to death, are you, that israel would use white phosphorous against civilian targets in gaza, and bomb schools, hospitals, and u.n. centers? well, cheney did do that in falujah, and of course, like the i.d.f., used uranium tipped shells that left radioactive clouds over battlefields. amused to death, are you, that in 1948 israeli killed count bernadotte, united nations mediator, just after he recommended borders for israel narrower than those ben gurion wanted? now, israel names streets after his assassins! amused to death, are you, that in the 1960's, israel hung a "textile manufacturing" sign outside its nuclear weapons development plant? amused to death , are you, that ben gurion lied to kennedy about israel's development of weapons of mass destruction at dimona? kennedy was about to act against israel before someone assassinated him. israel has, with u.s. assistance, arrogated to itself far too much power and has become a potential fuse for wordwide conflict. despite its alliance with the u.s. and the 250 hydrogen bombs it possesses, it acts as insecurely as it ever has. a nation of 7 million should never be able to hold a world of 7 billion hostage to its whims. and, finally, amused to death, are you, that israel would hold mordechai vanunu in solitary confinement for 11 years for telling the world the truth about israel's lies about its possession of thermonuclear warheads?
So you're here as an Israeli apologist, and we get that. Half of what your kind does is hound Chomsky everywhere he goes, pointing out his "lies" and making a big stink to divert attention from Israel's countless crimes against Palestinians, all so you can feel moral and heroic. One day you may finally realize . . . but of course you never will. Denial flows in your bloodstream, and without all that denial you'd drop completely dead from the dreaded recognition of what a lie your own life is.
..."I didn't have patience to continue listening afterwords" Force yourself. Otherwise, your post is mere jingoism.
Haha - I didn't read it but it's wrong! Perfect example -it apparently doesn't matter what a humanist as thoguhtful and ethical as Chomsky has to say - your mind is made up.
Yay team! Turn of my ears, my brain, my heart and let me attend a rally.
And anyway, an "afterword" is an epilogue. The word you need is "afterwards".
On the contrary, I heard more than enough in order to come to my conclusion. Mr. Chomsky doesn't lack in intelect, so I have to conclude that he lacks heavily in integrity.
Way to take a cheap empty shot at the non-specific post while ignoring all the specifics in johnny u's post.
"amused to death, are you, that israel targets gazan agricultural lands for destruction? clearly a war crime."
Of course i am aware that you can find a flip way to dismiss the most basic truth, so please go ahead and say something nice about war targeting agriculture. Time-honored tactic no doubt, when the strategic goal is destruction - waste their fields.
This is a one sided article: Plenty of criticism against Israel and the US, and virtually no word of criticism on the morality or legality of the other side’s actions (In 46 minutes of anti-west critisism, there were a couple of words on the kidnapped Israeli soldier, and that's all). One cannot pass judgment on someone without counter interrogate the other side, as if Israel and the US are working in vacuum. That’s like having a trial without a defence attorney.
A few inaccuracies:
Gaza is controlled by a different entity than the West Bank (Hamas vs. Fatah)
Until 1922, Jordan was part of Palestine, which means that Israel control about 20% of historical Palestine, and not 78%. (Google, Palestine 1922)
Siege is an act of war, not a war crime.
Members of terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel are described by Noam as “civilians”. (It may be technically true, yet it’s misleading.)
Not wanting to sell product to someone is NOT a crime. If Noam thinks that Israel’s refusal to sell natural gas to Gaza is a crime, why Iran and Saudi-Arabia refusal to sell Oil to Israel isn’t?
The legality of Jewish settlement is disputable. For example the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem. (The people who were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanian legion in 1948, returned to their homes in 1967. – That international law was violated here?)
The “Wall” is actually 97% fence, 3% wall. Also, the barrier was not built to steal land but to save lives. (Suicide bombers ring a bell?) –It was statistically proven that the barrier saves hundreds of lives a year.
Noam’s claim that if the reason for building the “Wall” is security, than it should have been built on the green line. That claim doesn’t hold water, since ½ a million Jews live in the West bank and they too need protection.
Appose to Chomski’s statements, road blocks do prevent deadly attacks.
Chomski quote the “Goldstone repost” as a reliable source, when in fact is a biased and problematic report written based on the guidelines of the most corrupt and biased UN body, (The UN Human Right Council.)
Appose to Chomski’s claim, the Hamas did not accept the Arab peace initiative.
Letto why do you only appear on Israel-related articles? You have nothing to say about anyting else. Are you a Harbara propagandist, as so many others have speculated? It sure seems so. Do you get paid?
I don't appear only on Israel-related articles. Occasionally, I also comment on Canadian and environment related topics. (I'm an Israeli-Canadian, and I have the right to focus on issues that are close to my heart.)
I'm not a Hasbara propagandist. I do not get paid to post here.
Any comment on the content of my comment? Did you find anything there that isn’t true?
Hard to reply to gibberish
hard to reply to a defense of murder
Nice try
Maybe if you ever learn to spell, not to mention begin to see these matters from any other perspective but militant Israel's, it might be worth responding to your Zionist propaganda.
"The “Wall” is actually 97% fence, 3% wall. Also, the barrier was not built to steal land but to save lives."
No it was built at least in part to steal land.Hence its route divides villages and even Israel's supreme court has ruled on numerous occasions that its route is untenable and not justified on security grounds. However the IDF have flouted court rulings or simply ignored them.
"Chomski quote the “Goldstone repost” as a reliable source, when in fact is a biased and problematic report written based on the guidelines of the most corrupt and biased UN body,"
This is factually incorrect. The UNHRC allowed Goldstone at his insistence to set his own guidelines. Israel simply wasn't interested regardless. Apparently a director of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and lifelong Zionist [Goldstone] was simply not sympathetic enough toward Israel to conduct an impartial inquiry.
From UN watch
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.5434977/k.DE22/UN_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict_Goldstone_Inquiry.htm
Background: Special Sessions and Inquiries of the UN Human Rights Council
In the three years since the UN Human Rights Council was established in June 2006, the 47-nation body—dominated by a controlling majority that includes China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia—has convened more emergency “special sessions” on Israel than on the rest of the world combined. These sessions, each initiated by the Arab and Islamic blocs, consistently condemned Israel for responding to cross-border attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah, yet said nothing about the attacks by both Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups, thereby legitimizing their actions and granting them effective immunity and impunity. Several of the sessions, including those of July, August, and November 2006, created “fact-finding missions” that declared Israel guilty from the start. The European Union, Canada and other democracies refused to support these measures on account of their being one-sided.
Nearly three decades ago, Professor Thomas M. Franck, the eminent NYU scholar and former president of the American Society of International Law, who recently passed away, lamented the emergence of this U.N. pattern in his authoritative article on procedural due process in human rights fact-finding by international agencies.[1] Referring to a 1968 General Assembly resolution that had taken it for granted “that Israel was in breach of its international obligations,” Prof. Franck criticized the creation of a fact-finding mission whose mandate included “conclusory language that palpably interfered with the integrity of the fact-finding process by violating the essential line between political assumptions and issues to be impartially determined.” Prof. Franck’s evaluation of such resolutions neatly summarizes the worth of the S-9/1 mandate: “A fact-finding group created by terms of reference that seek to direct its conclusions is essentially a waste of time. Its findings, at most, will reassure those whose minds are already made up.”[2]
In total, from its regular and special sessions, the Council has devoted more than three quarters of all its country censures to one country: Israel. By focusing the international spotlight on Israel, the collective strategy of Council members like China, Russia, Egypt, Pakistan, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia—supported by observer states like Iran, Syria, and Zimbabwe—is to shield their own crimes from scrutiny. Because they hold an automatic majority of approximately 30 out of 47 member states, the strategy is successful.
Original mandate:
January 12, 2009: Arab and Islamic Blocs Convene Special Session, Declare Israel Guilty of “Massive Violations”
Following the pattern and practice described above, on 12 January 2009—at the initiative of Egypt on behalf of the Arab and African Groups, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and Cuba for the Non-Aligned Movement, the Council met in special session on the situation in Gaza. It adopted Resolution S-9/1, “strongly condemn[ing]” Israel as being guilty of “massive violations,” and calling for an “urgent, independent, international fact-finding mission,” to be appointed by the Council president, in order to document this predetermined guilt
April 3, 2009: Council President Announces Goldstone Mission
Finally, on 3 April 2009, pursuant to Resolution S-9/1, then Council President Martin Uhomoibhi, the Nigerian ambassador in Geneva, announced the formation of the Mission: Justice Richard Goldstone as the head, together with members Prof. Christine Chinkin, Ms. Hina Jilani, and Col. Desmond Travers.[17] At a press conference in which he implicitly acknowledged that the original mandate was one-sided, the Council president also announced new terms of reference for the Mission: “[T]o investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”[18] However, he also suggested that the purpose of examining Palestinian violations would be strictly for the purpose of assessing the degree of Israeli guilt, as per the focus of the original mandate.[19] The initial title of the Mission included reference to the Resolution S-9/1 mandate, but this was later removed, in an apparent effort to obscure both the origin of the Mission and the destination of its report.[20]
Yes, there is a "pattern" of Israeli criticism.
You want to blame all of this criticism on some irrational hatred of Israel when, in truth, all of the criticism - especially that from the Arab bloc - is legitimately based on a corresponding pattern of Israeli atrocities.
Israeli dinsformation specialists such as those in this thread (e.g. amused_to_death and Letto) sound like crooks who - when arrested and accused - whine that the police are prejudiced against criminals.
q
A few inaccuracies in your list of inacuracies:
Gaza is controlled by a different entity than the West Bank (Hamas vs. Fatah).
Only because Israel and the the US funded and trained a Fatah force to depose Hamas in 2007 and it flunked.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza_documents200804
"Until 1922, Jordan was part of Palestine, which means that Israel control about 20% of historical Palestine, and not 78%. (Google, Palestine 1922)"
Now try Googling Palestine 1947, since in 1922 there was no legally binding decision to granting Israel a state in what became Jordan as well as Palestine west of the Jordan.
"Appose to Chomski’s statements, road blocks do prevent deadly attacks."
He said it was not their principal task.
"The legality of Jewish settlement is disputable."
Not according to International Law it isnt. I can dispute your right to oxygen, merely disputing something does not make it a legal dispute.
"Appose to Chomski’s claim, the Hamas did not accept the Arab peace initiative."
hamas accepted prisoners document.virtually identical.
Q: The legality of Jewish settlement is disputable."
Not according to International Law it isnt. I can dispute your right to oxygen, merely disputing something does not make it a legal dispute.
A: According to Alan Dowty, (Dowty, 2001, p. 217.)
" ... legally the status of the West Bank falls under the international law of belligerent occupation, as distinguished from nonbelligerent occupation that follows an armistice. This assumes the possibility of renewed fighting, and affords the occupier "broad leeway". The West Bank has a unique status in two respects; first, there is no precedent for a belligerent occupation lasting for more than a brief period, and second, that the West Bank was not part of a sovereign country before occupation—thus, in legal terms, there is no "reversioner" for the West Bank. This means that sovereignty of the West Bank is currently suspended, and, according to some, Israel, as the only successor state to the Palestine Mandate, has a status that "goes beyond that of military occupier alone."
Q: "Appose to Chomski’s claim, the Hamas did not accept the Arab peace initiative."
hamas accepted prisoners document.virtually identical.
A: The prisoners are not controlling the Hamas.
The Arab initiative - Permanent peace with Israel, after Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders, and find a just solution to the Palestinian refugees.
Hamas - Same conditions, accept that instead of a permanent peace, Israel will only get a 10 years truce. (After these 10 years are over, the war to exterminate Israel will resume.)
I say these difference by itself is somewhat more than virtually identical.
A: According to Alan Dowty, (Dowty, 2001, p. 217.)
" ... legally the status of the West Bank falls under the international law of belligerent occupation, as distinguished from nonbelligerent occupation that follows an armistice. This assumes the possibility of renewed fighting, and affords the occupier "broad leeway". The West Bank has a unique status in two respects; first, there is no precedent for a belligerent occupation lasting for more than a brief period, and second, that the West Bank was not part of a sovereign country before occupation—thus, in legal terms, there is no "reversioner" for the West Bank. This means that sovereignty of the West Bank is currently suspended, and, according to some, Israel, as the only successor state to the Palestine Mandate, has a status that "goes beyond that of military occupier alone."
Now read ISRAEL'S own legal counsel at the time of the occupation's beginning in a piece by Gorenberg in Haaretz:
"As for that legal opinion: It was written by Foreign Ministry legal counsel Theodor Meron, a Holocaust survivor with a doctorate in international law from Harvard. Meron was the government's top expert in the field. A decade later, he accepted an academic appointment in the United States and became a world-renowned authority on international law. Today he is a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
His status gives particular weight to the words he wrote 41 years ago: "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
Put simply, Meron warned in advance that settlement in the territories was illegal. The claim that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory would not stand up internationally, he wrote."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1025217.html
letto: why do you question goldstone's report? has israel not sequestered international funds meant for gazan reconstruction? didn't the embargos and punishments start right after the palestinians chose to elect hamas to run their territories? instead of waiting to see how hamas would govern, israel and the united states preemptively sanctioned the new government, as if to punish the palestinians for electing the wrong party. and, letto, chomsky said israelis woud not allow cooking oil into gaza; he did not say israel would not sell it cooking oil . israel can still buy its oil by the barrel on the international market, using its 3 billion dollar annual gift from the u.s.a. whatever race, ethnicity, color, or religion may hallmark a nation of 7 milion, that state must not be allowed to hold a world with 7 billion hostage to its whims. the best thing to do, if one really wants world peace, would be to convince the united nations to require israel, iran, iraq, pakistan, and india to disarm themselves of any nuclear weapons, and require other countries in the region to disavow any intent to acquire them. letto, surely you see the israeli destruction of agricultural lands and its use of white phosphorous as war crimes that ought to be punished. i believe that israel itself would have punished these acts 20 or 30 years ago. i mean, the israeli military courts cashiered sharon after he allowed the slaughter of hundreds of palestinians in refugee camps; however, that israelis eventually elected him prime minister distinguishes them from americans: we would never elect a william calley or an oliver north to high office, or even a douglas mcarthur. now, moshe dyan would never have used the israeli tactics of 2009, and would have court martialed any of his troops he caught doing so. but, then again, had the u.s. not given israel the green light in 2008 , israel would not have pummelled gaza as it did.
Q: why do you question goldstone's report.
A: Because it has legal deficiencies and it's biased.
Q: has israel not sequestered international funds meant for gazan reconstruction?
A: No. The money was stucked in the West Bank, waiting for the Hamas to folfill a few conditions set by the international community. (Not by Israel)
Q: didn't the embargos and punishments start right after the palestinians chose to elect hamas to run their territories?
A: No, patrtial embargo has started right after the Hamas declaired all past agreement with Israel void. (Including the fund transfer agreement and the border control agreement.)
Q: chomsky said israelis woud not allow cooking oil into gaza; he did not say israel would not sell it cooking oil .
A: In case you missed it, Gaza has a border with Egypt. Why don't they bring the cooking oil they didn't bouight from Israel through Egypt?
Q: israel can still buy its oil by the barrel on the international market, using its 3 billion dollar annual gift from the u.s.a.
A: Not true. Israel can only buy 'made in the USA' weapons with this money.
Q: if one really wants world peace, would be to convince the united nations to require israel, iran, iraq, pakistan, and india to disarm themselves of any nuclear weapons.
A: Maybe. It would be even better if USA, Russia, China, France, UK, and N. Korea will do the same. Though History thought us that nuclear free world didn't brought world peace in the past. (before the first nuke was built there was no world peace.)
Q: surely you see the israeli destruction of agricultural lands and its use of white phosphorous as war crimes that ought to be punished.
A: Using white phosphorous as a smoke screen or for signaling (As long as it's not used as an anti-personal weapon) is NOT a war crime.
However, surely you see that targeting civilians (As the hamas did) is a clear and undisputable war crime.
Q: the israeli military courts cashiered sharon after he allowed the slaughter of hundreds of palestinians in refugee camps
A: It wasn't a military court, but a government commission of Inquiry, (led by former Supreme Court Justice Yitzhak Kahan). And the conclution was not that Sharon allowed the mussacare, but that he failed to anticipate the massacare (Which was actually commited by an Arab Christian millitia, in retaliation to a massacare that Arafat did against Arab Christians in Damour, 1976). And yes, 18 years later, Sharon was democratically elected as Prime Minister. Am I to assume you don't like democracy?
Q: had the u.s. not given israel the green light in 2008 , israel would not have pummelled gaza as it did.
A: The goal of the war was NOT to punish Gaza, but to convince the Hamas to stop rocketing Israeli civilian targets. (In the 8 years before the war, 10,000 rockets and mortar bombs were fired from Gaza on Israeli civilian targets)
In response to letto post at 5:39 pm
Q: why do you question goldstone's report.
A: Because it has legal deficiencies and it's biased.
That's not an explanation merely a bland statement. Try Explaining WHAT its deficiencies are.
Q: chomsky said israelis woud not allow cooking oil into gaza; he did not say israel would not sell it cooking oil .
A: In case you missed it, Gaza has a border with Egypt. Why don't they bring the cooking oil they didn't bouight from Israel through Egypt?
Because Israel and Egypt are both trying to deligitimise hamas. Two wrongs make a right?
Q: had the u.s. not given israel the green light in 2008 , israel would not have pummelled gaza as it did.
A: The goal of the war was NOT to punish Gaza, but to convince the Hamas to stop rocketing Israeli civilian targets. (In the 8 years before the war, 10,000 rockets and mortar bombs were fired from Gaza on Israeli civilian targets)
During those 8 years israel responded with far more than 8000 artillery shells. each a good deal more powerful than any qassam.
Hamas had stopped the rocket fire. From the start of the June 2008 ceasefire up to Israels Nov 4th incursion into Gaza [to wreck the ceasefire] Israels own Foreign Affairs website had recorded a 98% drop in rocket fire as compared to the pre ceasefire period.
Since the Cast Lead collective punishment, rocket fire is only 90% below pre ceasefire levels.[there have been several hundred rockets this year,but Israel chooses not to stress this issue at this time].
Hence the predictable failure to completely halt the rockets or even match the ceasefire level of rockets is testimony to the fact that the operation was largely political. Punish Gazans who will punish Hamas.
Your contention that use of phosphorous is legal if used correctly seems to ignore the fact that its use is 'illegal' if used in populated urban areas.
Q: That's not an explanation merely a bland statement. Try Explaining WHAT its (Goldstone's report) deficiencies are.
A: That's a very long explanation.
Some highlights:
- It was an initiative of the UN Human right council. (That's a corrupt anti-Israeli body that since its creation in 2006, more than 80% of its country specific resolutions were against Israel, and less than 20% were against all other 191 UN members combined.)
- Some of the "Judges," such as Christine Chinkin, had already convicted the "suspect" before the investigation even began. (A big no no for any functional legal system.)
- The report ignored evidence submitted by Israelis.
- They took for granted evidence given by Palestinians, without confirming it and without checking if the witness was planted or intimidated by the Hamas.
- They didn't have a neutral military expert to determine if excessive force was used, as required by international law. (For example, they gave an example of a Masque bombing, blaming only Israel, even though this Masque was used to store rockets and explosives - hence a legit military target.)
- The report basically acquit the Hamas, blaming the rocket fired on Israeli civilian target on some mysterious, unnamed militants.
- 99% of the report was focus on Israel's action, and only 1% on Palestinian militants, without spending even one word on the conditions that prompted Israel to act. (The 10,000 rockets and mortar bombs on civilian targets)
You can find more details here:
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.5434977/k.DE22/UN_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict_Goldstone_Inquiry.htm
Not in any particular order.
In response to my 'Try Explaining WHAT its (Goldstone's report) deficiencies are'.
"It was an initiative of the UN Human right council."
None of the participants are members of the UNHRC. The head of the inquiry team Goldstone is a fully paid up Zionist.
"Some of the "Judges," such as Christine Chinkin, had already convicted the "suspect" before the investigation even began.(A big no no for any functional legal system.)"
Irrelevant. Chinkin put her name to an article which stated that Israel 'appears' to have committed war crimes'. Since the evidence was on everyone's TV screens this was no great leap of judgment.
Secondly, Goldstone addressed this point fairly. Had this been a 'legal' exercise the point would have been valid. As it was it was just an inquiry withoput any legal powers, which could and did only call for an independant Israeli inquiry. Hardly condemned to the gallows then?
"- The report ignored evidence submitted by Israelis."
Blatantly untrue. They paid Israeli's from Sderot their travel expenses in order to fly them out of Israel in order to hear their evidence in person.
"- They took for granted evidence given by Palestinians, without confirming it and without checking if the witness was planted or intimidated by the Hamas."
Completely false. Goldstone made clear in his prime time interview on PBS [catch it online]that all claims were verified and cross referenced and that they only considered the instances where this was possible to do so, or where it was relatively easy to establish the veracity of the claims.
"RICHARD GOLDSTONE to Bill Moyers on PBS: Well, we spoke to well over 100 witnesses. We didn't, obviously, take at face value everything we were told."
"- The report basically acquit the Hamas, blaming the rocket fired on Israeli civilian target on some mysterious, unnamed militants."
The report did nothing of the sort. It laid blame on Hamas for the rockets. Unfortunately the rockets were not accompanied by signed affidavits.
"- 99% of the report was focus on Israel's action, and only 1% on Palestinian militants, without spending even one word on the conditions that prompted Israel to act. (The 10,000 rockets and mortar bombs on civilian targets)"
Actually you are out by a factor of 10. or 1000%.
Out of 500 plus pages some 10% were on the Hamas actions.Not bad considering Israel refused to offer any co operation and considering that Israel threw perhaps 100 fold the amount of explosive power as Hamas into heavily populated areas.
"You can find more details here:
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.5434977/k.DE22/UN_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflic..."
Except you probably got most of your factually incorrect information from that site, which really demonstrates its own propagandisitc credentials rather than any objective analysis.
I prefer to look at a number of sources for my information. Some infoirmation was clearly visible on world wide TV [including in Canada], then there is a the matter of the 'Goldstone Report' itself, rather than UNWatch's skewed version. You might also want to hear or read Goldstone and his interview with Moyers to disabuse yourself of some of the falsehoods which you seem to have gladly accepted.
Bill Moyers interview with Goldstone or read transcript.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10232009/profile.html
In addition you might try this short read.It is the London Financial Times own editorial comment on the report and the reaction from its detractors. Bearing in mind the reputation for serious analysis that the FT has and its significant number of Jewish and conservative columnists and its right wing pro Israel pedigree, it is quite instructive as to the qualitative assessment of the Goldstone Report:
Gideon Rachman[Jewish. FT Foreign Affairs]"I thought the FT leader on the Goldstone report got it about right"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/425c2276-bcdb-11de-a7ec-00144feab49a.html
Excerpt: "This is a balanced report on an imbalanced conflict. The attacks on Mr Goldstone should not obscure its message: there can be no warrant or moral right for indiscriminate attacks on civilians."
Q: Because Israel and Egypt are both trying to deligitimise hamas. Two wrongs make a right?
A: The Hamas, when they took control of Gaza by force in 2006, declared all the agreements signed with Israel void, Including the border control agreement that Israel signed with the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and the EU. They killed and dispersed all the Palestinian border control officers, and expelled all the European monitors. This is why Egypt block the Gaza border.
The Hamas can end the Blockade anytime they want. If they really want the blockade to end, all they have to do is give Israel back the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit and declare: "Yes, we agree to the 2005 border control agreement. That is all."
Q: During those 8 years israel responded with far more than 8000 artillery shells. each a good deal more powerful than any qassam.
A: Israel is more powerful, militarily than the Hamas. That fact by itself doesn't mean that the Hamas is not the aggressor. Nor does it means that Israel doesn't have the right to defend its citizens or to act in order to stop these rocket attacks.
Fact are:
- The Hamas is a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel (all of Israel)
- The Hamas is an extreme racist organization. They officially and publically declared that they have natural right to randomly kill Jews. (They call it "all forms of resistance")
- If Israel would stay quiet, There would be more shelling and more violence against Israel. However, if the Palestinian militants would have stayed quiet, there would be zero violence, and zero Israeli retaliation.
Q: israel can still buy its oil by the barrel on the international market, using its 3 billion dollar annual gift from the u.s.a.
A: Not true. Israel can only buy 'made in the USA' weapons with this money.
Incorrect. Israel has a unique dispensation to spend up to 20% of that money on domestic sourced materials.
"Q: didn't the embargos and punishments start right after the palestinians chose to elect hamas to run their territories?"
Incorrect. UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in January 2003:
'(T)he Israeli blockade and closures over the past two years had pushed the Palestinian economy into such a stage of ‘de-development’ that as much as US $2,400m. had been drained out of the economy of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip’
The blockade was partial for several years, widened after hamas' election and became total after the US/Israeli engineered coup attempt by fatah in 2007 led to the ejection of Fatah from Gaza.
The Hamas can end the partial blockade anytime they want. If they choose to do so.
See my comment from January 2nd, 2010 8:59 pm
Right - one of the major deficiencies of the Goldstone report is that it's too "balanced" - treating the two sides as though they were equal parties in a battle of equal forces.
Gaza was a genocidal massacre, pure and simple. A couple of qassams that made holes in the Sderot pavement my dog couldn't bathe in and made a couple of sneakered yentas faint is long and far from the blanket-bombing with daisy cutters, phosphorus, the deliberate mass-murder - no, the canned hunt that was unleashed on Gaza.
Outrageous that anyone could defend such actions. Sharon should have been hauled, gurney and all, before the ICC, just as that fool Demjanjuk was hauled in.
Don't worry about Gilad Shalit - he's likely to be better taken care of than the thousands of children Israel routinely arrests, beats, starves, orphans, bombs, and imprisons. Anyway, if Israel claims it's a war, he's merely a pow. But then, you like your semantics to slice two ways, depending on expediency.
If you want Hamas to stop retaliating against Israeli provocations, stop kvetching already about homemade fireworks and talk seriously. Stick to the promises made at the bargaining tables. Obey the law.
Letto in the Jan. 2nd 2:50 post defends Israel's siege of Palestine as" an act of war, not a war crime". Unjust wars are a crime and morally an unjust siege is also a war crime. Surely Letto knows that military wars have Geneva convention guidelines which determine the criminality of the military war however the economic sanctions ,blockade , or siege does not have act of war guidelines to determine if they are legal according to proportionality of civilian casualties. Surely any decent, human being would consider the siege of a nation following a brutally, destructive, military war, as an international war crime. Nations defeated in world wars were allowed to rebuild and some were even helped to rebuild after a war. Now countries devastated by wars are continued to be violated by being held in siege. The International community must legislate this as a war crime, if it is not. The civilians especially the children are the innocent victims. It does not stop terrorism, it fuels terrorist acts against the country responsible for the siege and it's allied countries such as America, as in this case of Israel and Palestine.It was after America bombed Iraq into the stone age and held Iraq under siege that we became the target of terrorism by sympathizers of Iraqi people. If we want to end the crime of terrorism we must end the war crimes of bombs and blockades. Violence begets violence.
I argue that 10,000 rockets and mortar bomb and dosends of suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians is a just cause for a partial siege.
Please note that this is not a full siege. Gaza have a border with Egypt, which Israel doesn't control. In addition, Israel allows humanitarian aid into Gaza. (Food, medicine, blankets, diesel, water, electricity etc.)
the modern state of ISRAEL was created by displacing palestinians, taking their land, subjugating them to homeless , stateless status with the ISRAELI equivalent and version of the "star of david" identification imposed on palestinians , the better to dehumanize them...just as the nazis did to the jews of europe. ....even the "FATHER OF ZION" Israel - David-ben-gurion openly admitted as such : that the ISRAELIS committed genocide and bruality and - by their OWN definitions during the "creation" of israel - TERRORISM against palestinians in order to "clear the land" of palestinians .
now - with the SUPPORT of the USA for that - why is it so reminiscent of the europeans "clearing the land" of NATIVE INDIANS in order to "create" the USA?.
teddy " the modern state of ISRAEL was created by displacing palestinians, taking their land, subjugating them to homeless."
---
So now we shift the discussion from the Gaza war to the creation of Israel.
OK. Here is a brief history of modern Israel's creation:
- 135 AD Jews were expelled from Judea (A.K.A Palestine / Israel) by the Romans.
- 1897 - 1947 Jews legally immigrated back to their historical homeland.
- 1947 UN resolution 181 decide to divide Palestine to a Jewish state and an Arab state. Jews say yes.
- Arabs reject UN resolution 181, and go to a war of annihilation against the Jews of Palestine.
- Both sides dehumanize the other.
- 1949 The Jews win, modern Israel is created.
- As a result of the war, 700,000 Palestinians become refugees and 850,000 Jews (who lived in Arab countries) also become refugees, the land and property of both groups - taken.
You get (I hope) the general theme.
Now that we've covered the past, perhaps we can go back to the discussion at hand: Gaza - One year later.
Any comments on the 10,000 rockets fired from Gaza ogainst Israeli civilian targets? Or on the Hamas revoking the border control agreement which was signed in 2005 between Israel, the P.A, Egypt and the EU? (The real reason why the people of Gaza suffers.)
145AD, - Get over it already! There isn't a single national identity or ethnicity on this planet that hasn't been expelled, imprisoned, enslaved, oppressed by another at some point in its history. Somehow they managed to leave their past behind and move on. History is a fluid thing - why do you act as though it were a permanent tableau, a museum diorama that never changes? What's in that for you? why should people living today make up for what happened almost 2000 years ago?
10,000 qassams, you claim - even if that were a reliable number - over what stretch of time and in response to what? Do you bomb Gaza because of the rockets from 12 years ago (for example) as though they happened yesterday? Do you magically forget there was a cease-fire of several months and that the Gaza attack did not occur in response to a rocket?
How do people just "become refugees"? Does it rain from the sky? Is it like getting your period? Is there a ceremony? Or is the role of refugee thrust upon a people who are being expelled, massacred, stripped of their patrimony, their land, their livelihood, their dignity by a savage military power?
redballoon: "There isn't a single national identity or ethnicity on this planet that hasn't been expelled, imprisoned, enslaved, oppressed by another at some point in its history. Somehow they managed to leave their past behind and move on."
Great idea. I'm all for it. One should look at the future, and not at the past. You should preach that to the Palestinian leadership, if they listen, we might have peace in the Middle East, instead of trying to turn the clock back to the 19th century (As the Fatah wants) or to 800AD (As the Hamas wants) or to 960 BC (As some Jewish fanatics wants).
redballoon: "10,000 qassams, you claim - even if that were a reliable number - over what stretch of time and in response to what? Do you bomb Gaza because of the rockets from 12 years ago"
I didn't say 10,000 Qassams, I said 10,000 rockets and mortar bomb (combined).
The reason why Israel went to war, is because the Hamas declared the seize-fire over, and the number of rocket attacks from Gaza against Israeli civilian target has increased from 1-2 rockets a day (during the seize fire) to 60 rockets a day.
redballoon: "How do people just "become refugees"?"
People become refugee because they run away out of fear to their lives. In Israel war of independence, about 1,000 Palestinian civilians were massacres, which is more or less similar to the number of Jews massacred in Arab countries. 75% of the Palestinian refugees fled without seeing even a single Israeli soldier. 99.5% of the Jews who fled Arab countries did so because they feared for their lives.