Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Tom Friedman Offers a Perfect Definition of 'Terrorism'
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:
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.
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.
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: John Cole points to a really extreme -- and quite amazing -- example of what happens when only one side of a political debate is organized, engaged and aggressive.
Conversely, in comments, El Cid points to an important historical example illustrating the real benefits that come from a President's supporters applying intense and adversarial pressure to ensure that their political priorities are heeded.
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?
- Posted in
106 Comments so far
Show AllThe people in Gaza are much like the native Americans who from 1610 until early in the 20th century kept getting pushed farther and farther from the good productive land of their ancestors. Promise after promise was made and broken. Never was compensation for their loses seriously addressed. Never was there a discussion of their rights. Unfortunately for the native American there no weapons available that they could use to strike from a distance. So the genocide continued until they were locked securely in their reservations, with every drop of water and piece of food tightly controlled by the government elected by the people who now owned their land. Yes, we whites broke the "red" man, only because he was totally without the means to fight back.
Now Israel is saying that an absolute condition for an armistice is that Israel be able to control everything that goes in or out of Gaza. Do they really think that the people of Gaza are going to fall in love with Israel? Do they think that Hamas will become less popular? Gaza already resoundingly rejected Fatah. If anything, I would expect Gaza to become even more radical in its hatred of Israel. What do they have to lose at this stage? I am quite pacifist in my views, but I really think that if I were a Palestinian whose ancestral lands had been taken from me in the way that theirs was, I would probably be a member of a radical "terrorist" group today, using any means at my disposal to force a recognition of the wrongs done to me.
"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. . . ."
Another great article poking large holes in American hypocrisy.
And the above definition of terrorism should say "...by nations, subnational groups, clandestine agents, or any other country or organization that provides funds, equipment, or training for such nations or groups...". Namely, America in spades.
Peace
Actually the definition should also include the sense that violence "may" be inflicted upon oneself, it is that threat that leads to a terrified state of mind. An act of violence is not necessary for terroism to exist, only an overtly aggressive party, a bully by any other name, with the ability to carry out the violence.
FYI, a delicious take on the "peculiar genius" of Thomas Friedman entitled 'Flathead' (Joel Kovel, paraphrasing Karl Marx on Jeremy Bentham, called him a "genius of bourgeois stupidity".) Here's a sort of blank verse poem that an intern at Harper's created by compiling sentences she extracted from Friedman's editorials of that summer:
And now for a wild prediction. Real men drill wells. Don't know if they're right, but you gotta root for them. Deep down they all know it and they admit it to each other in private. You have to admire it. Because they are anything but crazy. Normally I wouldn't mind. But perfect isn't on the menu anymore. Think about it. This is dangerous. No really. It's pathetic when you think about it but also sad. Yes, yes, yes. No, no, no. Woo, woo, woo. That's embarrassing. Gotta tell you, it's the darndest thing I've ever seen. But you have to love this figure. It's kind of a two-for-one deal. A plus B equals C, but what will C be? Or does he know that I know that he knows? Say what? You guessed it. Not a bad deal. But guess what? There is a wall. Several actually. And that's the drama. But hopeless? Stay tuned. This is going to get interesting.
Christ! this is downright dadaist, and the fool doesn't know it.
why should ethnic cleansing be rewarded ? the palestinians did not leave voluntarily the territory of today's israel when the state was "created" by western powers in 1948. below is what one of the leading israel-based israeli historians of the creation of modern israel, benny morris, said during a famous interview he gave to haaretz (for link: google "morris haaretz survival of the fittest").
[...]"Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place *o v e r c a m e_t h e_ i n j u s t i c e* that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them."
morris explains what "uprooting" means elsewhere in his haaretz interview: orchestrated mass rapes, massacres, and harassments by jewish armed bands.
hence creating the jewish state was such a noble goal that it was ok for the jews to rob, rape, and massacre the palestinians "like the arabs did".
that's why the palestinians "left voluntarily" the Young Besieged State Of IsraelTM (the only democratic one!).
how long will decent people keep tiptoeing around this monstrosity and keep asking the palestinians to make "concessions"!? it's time to expand israel to cover both the west bank and gaza and to transform the racist state into a non-confessional democratic state for everybody with no special rights for anybody (btw, apartheid south africa was "democratic" too).
PS. ever heard of those negro-african tribes who said they were jewish but were rejected by orthodox jews in israel until the managed to show that their Y-chromosome DNA "belonged" ? if that is not racism of the most explicit biological kind... ;)
Mr. Greenwald, if you don't mind, would you deliver a message to Mr. Friedman for me?
Tom. Suck. On. This.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
Boycott Israel Goods and Services. Here is the web site address to get a list of hundreds, perhaps thousands of companies/goods: It is quite extensive.
http://www.boycottisraeligoods.org/modules38443.php
Just more Anti-Semitismm from the core of the Propaganda System.
Accusations of anti-semitism have been overused. The term means nothing anymore. You're going to have to come up with something else. I have "Anti-Semite" t-shirts for sale at my cost if anyone would like one.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
karlof1,
You really need to look terms up before you use them. Hebrew and Arabic people are both consider Semitic people. In other words Palestinians are just as Semitic as the Jews of Israel.
You and a**h*le-apologists for U. S. - Israeli war crimes, like Friedman, Dershowitz, Horowitz, Pipes, Emanuel, Reid, Feinstein, et al. ad nauseum, make anti-semitism a growing concern. I rarely see any remarks approaching anti-semitism on these pages or those of other so-called progressive websites, but time and again, that smelly red herring gets tossed into the crowd by those who seek to divert attention from the facts: the U. S. and Israel are in violation of international laws and standards of conduct - for wartime actions, let alone for pre-emptive military opportunism. What ye reap, so shall ye sow. Alas, Zionists appear intent on perpetuating the bloodshed through their arrogance and hubris.
The real anti-semites are the Zionists who betray those of the Jewish faith who just want to live in peace, for you feed the hatred that kills the children in whose memory more hatred will be wrought.
Thank you.
Really? Hardly any of us here are anti-Arab.
"Free trade" and war war war is what sums up not only Thomas Friedman but also the entire US Foreign Policy. The US is morally and financially bankrupt. I beg of GOD to please not allow Obama and the Democrats to pull a "Terri Schiavo" on America. Just let her die and be reborn ! It's getting more likely impossible to stop the elites anyway so what's to lose by RESETTING America ?
Great article! I have a few questions:
Is it true that Bush is Olmert's glove puppet?
Is it true that the Bolivian President called for the Knesset to be charged with war crimes and genocide?
Is it true that the number of Palestinians killed is now over 1000 with around half of them women and children?
Is it true that only 7 Israeli soldiers have been killed so far?
Is it true that America is seeking other ways to deliver a shipment of missiles and bombs to Israel?
Is it true that the Israeli navy stopped a ship from Iran from delivering aid to the Palestinians?
Is it true that the governments of most nations in the world are complicit in the ongoing genocide?
IF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE, THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD HANG ITS HEAD IN SHAME!
www.dangerouscreation.com
As is so often the case recently, Glenn Greenwald is at the front of the cyber pack when it comes to confronting the warrior rhetoric and policy ramifications of prominent mainstream media apologists for US militarism. This article, comparing Tom Friedman and other self-identified liberal hawks' cheerleading for more and better wars like the recent ones in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza, is a timely, first class piece of analysis.
I also highly recommend checking out the link to Brandon Friedman's latest offering on Daily Kos about the neo-cons' retreat into a fantasy world during the final countdown to the Obama inauguration. The moon is nearly full, and the crazies are really out and about.
I am about to celebrate the 40th anniversary of my discharge from the United States Army. As one who took part in and survived the antiwar movement of the Vietnam era, I can honestly say I never dreamed a day would come when American public opinion shapers like Thomas Friedman and the New York Times would so casually, and so openly, talk about killing people with hi tech weaponry as some sort of responsible policy option, another tool in the toolbox perpetually lying there on the proverbial table, just waiting to be picked up and used.
Time to take the toys away from the boys.
Bill from Saginaw
The Friedman's of the world are the living protege of their erstwhile propagandist forefathers like Josef Goebbels. They have clearly embodied and personified these old Nazis very well and are carrying on the tradition.
Radical american zionists and baptists have caused more death on this planet than anyone else. If i could claw this fuckers eyes out i would.
Great analysis. I was horrified when I read Friedman this morning. Thank you, thank you.
But tell me you were not surprised. He has been saying stuff like this FOR YEARS.
Mr. Greenwald: Your articles are always logical, interesting, and to the point.
Maybe you're the next chomsky, with more adrenalin.
Damn good article by Glenn Greenwald!
Humans were put on this planet to procreate and destroy each other. How weird!
This is another in Glenn's lost list of excellent articles. I think Tom Friedman is easily one of the most pernicious men in America - rationalizing and intellectually sugarcoating some of the most horrific excesses of the American empire. From his ardent support of the war in Iraq to the glorification of the failed arch capitalist economic system, it surprises me he is actually taken seriously even though so much of what he says has been proven wrong.
You should see Thomas Friedman's careless ranting on the state of your country India. He favors the mess Banglore has become. He was once asked about farmers in that country committing suicide and he said "well, that's just business and they'll find new jobs". I once met a niece of one of the farmers who committed suicide and she told me that after the farmland was taken over, the farmer's son had to change his future plans from agriculture to something else. The son earns only 70% of what his dad earned as a farmer.
Friedman is but one cell in the metastasized terminal cancer of American moral decrepitude. America will either accept and embrace the radical treatments required for the remission of its corporate-military disease, or will succumb to the growing plague devouring its people, perhaps taking the rest of the world along in its miserable demise. Certainly, Israel has already contracted the same lethal condition. The same Israel whose Zionist flaks contend is populated by an oppressed, persecuted population now spreads disease, death and devastation like an HIV-positive nymphomaniacal junkie. The worms and bacteria will make short work of its corpse, just like it will of America's.
Corporate-sponsored militarism and plunder of the planet are the mortal enemies of the people, and all its proponents and proxies must be destroyed. Congressional "representatives," media elites, corporate executives, military commanders, I declare war on you all, for you spread a pestilence humanity can no longer sustain.
Read Ilan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" and weep.
This Israeli historian is one of a small group of academics and journalists willing to revise the official history (that Palestinians left voluntarily, that there were no massacres and forced displacement, that Israel wanted a fair partition, etc.).
We are seeing not a war but a massacre of a population of 1.5 million trapped in a small enclosed territory, prevented from leaving by sea or by land, with Egypt, that craven puppet of the western powers, sealing its borders and preventing civilian refugees from leaving.
The "pragmatic" leaders of Hamas, the ones who brought the suicide bombers under control and who have been engaging in dialogue, might well be silenced now. It seems fairly obvious that Israel had no intention of negotiating a peaceful settlement - at least not a fair one.
Yes, Bolivia has followed the example of Venezuela and severed diplomatic relations with Israel. Which other country has had the courage to do this? Certainly not any of Israel's economic partners in the West. Certainly not the pragmatists in China, Russia, Turkey, and other countries for whom this disaster is a lower priority than their trade issues with Europe and the U.S.
Meanwhile, the Canadian representatives at the U.N. Human Rights meeting cast the sole vote against a resolution censoring Israel and demanding an end to the attack on Gaza. As a Canadian, I am mortified. As a Jew, I am heartbroken.
Boycott Israel. Expose its enablers.
Maybe you could speak to the Jewish community in Harrisburg PA. There was an article recently in the local Patriot-News daily rag about a gathering of a couple hundred of the local Jewish community to proclaim their solidarity with Israel and its recent invasion of Gaza.
_________________
Groups hold rally in support of Israel // Supporter of Palestinians expresses opposing view
While a cold wind blew outside the Pennsylvania Capitol on Thursday, about 200 people inside demonstrated an abundance of support for Israel during a solidarity rally for the land they love.
"We have come to deliver a clear and strong message," said Steve Aaron, representing the rally sponsors, the Jewish Federation of Greater Harrisburg's Community Relations Council and the Pennsylvania Jewish Coalition. "We stand with Israel. We seek peace in and around her borders."
As Israel entered the third week of its military campaign to destabilize Hamas rulers in the Gaza Strip, about 200 people, some with signs and Israeli flags, came to the Capitol to express their loyalty to Israel.
Not everyone in the Harrisburg area agrees with that sentiment.
"If the Palestinians did the attacks the Israelis did, the world would call the Palestinians terrorists," said Nabila Taha of Hummelstown, who was born in the Middle East country of Lebanon.
"More than 600 people have been killed, mostly children," she said in a phone interview. "This is genocide by the people who suffered the Holocaust. They are bringing another Holocaust on the Palestinian people."
Aaron, flanked by an American flag and an Israeli flag, stood in front of a sign saying "Harrisburg stands with Israel." He said Hamas "has turned Gaza into a terrorist base, has fired thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israeli communities and has forced Israel to defend herself and her people through military might."
Governments are responsible for protecting their citizens, Aaron said. "If rockets were being fired at American cities, we would expect our government to take the necessary action to protect our people," he said. "Nothing less should be expected of Israel."
Israeli Consul General Daniel Kutner, who represents Israel in six states, called life in southern Israel "unbearable" due to missile attacks from Gaza. "Enough is enough," he said.
Rabbi Eric Cytryn of Beth El Temple returned Sunday from visiting his three children in Israel. He said Hamas "has terrorized and traumatized thousands of Israelis" over the years.
"When your neighbors tell you that you have no right to exist and shoot at you night and day, you defend your family as best you can," he said.
Taha, in a phone interview about the Palestinian viewpoint, said Palestinians want peace.
"The Palestinians in Gaza have been under blockade of food, medicine, water and other things for almost two years," she said. "You can't live like that. At some point, enough is enough. Israel has had them under siege, then attacked them.
Taha expressed surprise "that anyone would rally for Israel. Friends of Israel should say 'you are wrong on this one.' Let's sit together and come to peace."
The Rev. India Garnett of the United Church of Christ in Harrisburg and member of the Scholars for Peace board of directors, said Israel has "every right and moral imperative to defend itself."
Two young members of the audience agreed.
"It's not nice for Gaza to shoot rockets into Israel," said Hallell Cheskis, 8, of Susquehanna Twp. as he hoisted a sign saying "Harrisburg loves Israel." The Yeshiva Academy third grade student said that he wants to tell terrorists in Gaza to stop the shooting.
"If they don't listen, I'd take an army to fight in Gaza," he said. "I support Israel."
Melissa Kline, 9, of Lower Paxton Twp., said people should realize that "we're not bad people. The land should be shared."
_________________
ekaton aka d.k.shaw
Hamas has said, time and again as well as in its charter that it CANNOT ever make a permanent peace with a jewish state. If that is true, wouldn't we be prolonging the death and war and suffering with a premature cease-fire? Won't Hamas be back at it again in no time?
Care to show me where Israel CAN make a permanent peace with the Palestine. I bet if Mother Theresa herself was the leader of Palestine, they would call her a terrorist!
Actually, Mother Terasa was a terrorist albeit a silent one. She has a dark side too. I do agree that Israel has no intention of peace the way it's doing its bullying thanks to our taxpayer funded weaponry at their disposal.
Israel began in terrorism. Zionist extremists invented things like mail bombs and civilian airliner hijackings. Her leaders who are old enough to remember WWII and the formation of the nation of the nation have all been quite outspoken about the usefulness of terrorism in their struggles. They were also quite clear that there was no moral inconsistency, and quite plainly viewed terrorism as just another facet of war. Many people in any military institution would give you a wry grin when you even mention something as naive as 'rules of engagement'.
One thing we in the West need to get through our heads is that any nation founded upon race, or any founded upon privilege for any single religion or ideology (this includes economic ideology) is NOT a democracy, although it is easier for westerners to recognize this when it comes to theocracy or race. Implicit in a democracy is blindness to race, religion, or economic status. Israel is a Jewish state and will NEVER allow a non-Jewish majority to gain political power. As it stands, Palestinians are neither allowed equal rights nor sovereignty as a nation. They are herded into ghettos or 'reservations' which shrink by the day, and have been separated from one another into ever shrinking islands. A look at the progress of Israeli expansion over the last fifty years makes Israel's intentions quite clear. The two year blockade of Gaza has been a far more lethal weapon than any of the makeshift missiles that Hamas has fired across the borders. It is clear that they are in a prison, being starved out. Israel broke the so-called 'ceasefire', if you could call blockade and starvation for over a million people within a ghetto a 'ceasefire, "at the beginning of November after Israeli commandos killed a team of Hamas fighters during a raid on a tunnel they suspected was being dug for kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. That raid set off more Palestinian rocketing." (U.S. News and World Report) Now Israel unleashes hell, claiming it was Hamas that did so. More than half the dead are women and children. More than half the Israeli dead are killed by their own in 'friendly fire'. (figures)
Understand that I make a distinction between the government of Israel and the Jewish people when I condemn their actions. If Israel wants to lay claim to land they 'owned' (after taking it through genocide sanctioned by God) and lost two thousand years ago. Native Americans have a better claim to the whole of the U.S. than Israel. We need to understand what kind of government is running Israel, and it isn't a democracy.
Hamas has said it would make a permanent peace with Israel if it was not blockaded by Israel and it would go along with a UN and Arab League guarantee for the security of Palestine and Israel. A comprehensive peace is possible and will happen when the money runs out for the War. After thousands of years of this it will take the shock of "Where is the money now?" to bring peace.
If the US stopped giving Israel the money for this War, Israel might change (Maybe) and want to make peace with it's enemies.... You make peace with enemies if you want peace.
Israel needs a deal with HAMAS if it wants peace.
More facts here than any Western Media http://english.aljazeera.net/
The USA can't afford to finance this madness anymore and the sooner the US and Israel get it, the better off we all will be.
Can Glenn Greenwald replace Friedman, Kristol, Brook and the rest of the Times's neocon/neofascist crowd?
Besides, Israel has one goal--destroy the Palestinians.
Doubt it? Consider:
Israel can defang Hamas by supporting the Fatah government in the West Bank. Once Fatah makes real improvements in the lives of the Palestinians, moderate Gazans would flock to them and throw Hamas out. But what transformational deal has Israel offered Fatah? Certainly, removing the settlers from the West Bank would be a major improvement, or a jobs program or infrastructure improvements and on and on. But none of this is happening and one has to ask why. Recall that former prime minister Sharon referred to Mahmud Abbas, the Fatah leader, as a “plucked chicken;” moreover, Israeli army chief Moshe Yaalon declared that "the Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people."
It seems that Israel has no real solution to the plight of the Palestinians--other than they hope they go away and if they won’t go away there is their slow, creeping erasure. This is similar to America's policy toward its indigenous Indians. It worked in the USA (the Indians were all killed or corralled into reservations) but is not working in Gaza because Israel lives in a sea of Arabs. Short of killing all the Arabs, a solution is needed. Some adult needs to tell the Israelis and Hamas to stop. A neutral military force needs to be placed between the fighting forces. No rockets, blockades or settlers allowed. Go back to the '67 armistice lines, and deliver the two state solution preached by many but practiced by few.
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
Fool Friedman concedes that Israel is a terrorist state.
He can testify for the prosecution at the war crimes trials of all the Israeli leaders and their enablers in regimes such as the Bush and Obama administrations.
The Plot to Destory Israel:
Arabs start wars and, utilizing the civilian death tolls these wars create, press for cease-fires that actually give the Arabs more than they had before the start of the shooting.
Using rockets and suicide bombers to shred the Israeli economy and kill the tourism industry; also to intimidate other countries from doing business with Israel. Israel is a tiny country that is heavily trade dependent.
By using the so-called "South Africa" model, Israel's enemies hope to impose internal and external pressures on Israel to force it to capitulate to Arab demands.
The Jews lose their country as the single state solution is imposed on the enemies terms.
Israel knows this is the scheme, and it is rightly defending itself against it.
This is the Big Lie of the Zionists. It was the Zionists who started this war when they began emigrating to Palestine en masse and forcefully intimidating and displacing the existing population to create a Zionist state which culminated in the 1948 war and the mass expulsion of Palestinians. The Zionists were not satisfied to just share the land. They wanted an exclusive democratic Zionist state and you can't have that unless the majority population is Zionist. Their main claim to that land is that God gave it to them. Please. How can anyone expect the Arabs to just accept this? Would you if you were them? How can anyone expect the modern world to accept such a claim? It had been 2000 years since a Jewish state existed in Palestine. No one would consider such an ancient claim valid for any other group.
The rest has just been tit for tat. What else could anyone expect? The Zionist come back after 2000 years and expect the Arabs to just make way for their exclusive Jewish state? It defies logic and anyone who ascribes to it are either uninformed, lying to themselves, racist, or a combination thereof.
Right!!! I noticed how the Palestinian territory keeps expanding and their dynamic booming economy. It must be from all the reparations the israelis have paid them for war crimes. Thank for confirming the boycott will work. Dissolve all criminal nations!!
Say What !!!!!!
Go back in history to "The Balfour Accord".........The Arabs alligned with the British because they were promised, "If you fight with us against the Ottoman Empire, we will give you back all your land." .......The Arabs did not know that the Zionists were offerred three relocation options from the British: Nigeria, Cyprus, or share Palestine with the Arabs.......The Arabs did not know that the British wanted to maintain a "Colony" in Arab Territory and were willing to use the Zionists.
The U.S and Great Britain have been arming Saudi Arabia and Israel for decades. Israel gets the Nuclear Weapons and missles. (Here Bill, here's 15 to 20 million dollars for your foundation, thanks for those F16's.)
History has shown that people like the Bushes and Rockefellers have always done business with so called enemies. War brings profits beyond belief......Who helped overthrow the Czars? Where do you think Hitler's fuel came from? Whether it was Saddam Hussein or The Taliban, the United States put them in power and supplied them with: money, arms, training, and support. "My enemy is my friend, my friend is my enemy."
Massud,
The plot to destroy Israel is being helped by the War crimes and carnage Israel is inflicting on innocent people, women and children. These crimes do not Defend Israel at all. It is evil based on their Greed and Paranoia.
A peace deal with Hamas would be defending Israel.
If Israel does not want to live in the Sea they should stop asking for it.
You will find more facts about the problem here http://english.aljazeera.net/
Massud . . . take a look at this map. WHO'S trying to destroy WHOM?
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/photos/maps/landloss.html
I was just about to mention that Palestinians have NEVER gained a single thing. Good post.
Do any of you need another reason to cancel your Times subscription?
The ultra-religious zealots who have hijacked israel like to sit and debate every word and nuance of all their "holy" books.
Apparently in their new world order, the new 6TH commandment is: Thou shalt not kill, but genocide and massacres are OK; especially if there is an election looming.
Groups like the kkk, the aryan brotherhood, stormfront, and others rejoice as they sit around drinking their budweisers, knowing that israel is doing more to advance the cause of anti-semitism than they ever could.
america and israel, two sides of the same phony coin - war crimes under the aegis of seeking peace with their self-righteous defiance of the norms of civilized socities.
Meanwhile a cowardly compliant democratic majority congress congratulates itself on presupposed change that NOBODY could believe in. And so it goes (K. Vonnegut).
mr. friedman and the ny times in this orwellian world have become hate-mongering deceptive agents of yellow journalism as they justify collateral damage in the pretext of the greater good. Of the ~195 coutries in the world, america and israel like to fancy themselves the exemplars of democracy; exemplars of hypocrisy would be more accurate.
Meanwhile the Palestinian people are treated like pawns as apartheid, liquidation, and slow ethnic cleansing is accomplished on THEIR land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8SfiCnwF28
A shandeh un a charpeh!!!
"The eastern world, it is exploding
You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’
And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin’
We’re on the eve of destruction.
If the button is pushed, there’s no runnin’ away
There’ll be no one to save, with the world in a grave
I can’t twist the truth, it knows no regulation.
Handful of senators don’t pass legislation
We’re on the eve
Of destruction
Mm, no no, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction." (Barry McGuire 1965)
Silence IS complicity
I'm honestly a little confused why everyone hates Friedman with such intensity. He's on our side. He supported Obama. He's an environmentalist. He supports setting a time line for withdrawing our forces from Iraq. He wants to close Guantanamo. He supports the bailout. Have any of you ever seen Friedman on Oprah or the Daily Show? He's a pretty reasonable guy. He's sort of like the Dr, Phil of politics. He finds down-to-earth ways to describe complex problems. Does everyone hate him just because he supports Israel? Is it because he's Jewish? What gives?
We can't stand his neo-con, war crime chicken hawk side. If you can't see that side of him, you must support it too.
I second your emotion. Well observed.
· Yr Obd't Servant
DaveBronstein
"You've far surpassed the famous Daniel David" Daniel David??? I'm not sure what you're talking about but I can certainly tell you're being insulting.
"Are you seriously unaware that the bailout is a monstrous crime?"
It' ugly. It's drastic. But a "crime"? No. The problem is that in order to save the jobs of ordinary workers and middle class retirees, we have no choice but to bailout some of Wall Street in the process.
Am I happy about the bailout? No, not at all. But if the bailout was only intended to help the wealthy, then why when it first came up for a vote in Congress did the Democrats support it, while the Republicans voted against it? I'll tell you why. It's because Democrats care about working-class people and see the reality of the situation, whereas Republicans are so arrogant that they let their love of the "free market" cloud their thinking. We need realists, not ideologues.
"Also, supporting Obama is worth precisely nothing. Like 99% of Democrats, is basically a Republican in sheep's clothing."
I disagree. Somehow I doubt who would be saying that if McCain was President (or if he had a heart attack) if Palin was president. If Friedman didn't support Obama, you would hold it against him.
"It's because he's an effective apologist for fascists. He worships the war machine. He's a nationalist, a militarist, & an apologist for imperialism."
Then why would he support ending the Iraq war? Why would he be so critical of Bush? I know that it's true that he initially supported the invasion of Iraq, but only tepidly and that was mainly because he opposed Saddam.
Frankly, Thomas Friedman's support for the invasion of Iraq was no different than Juan Cole's support for the invasion of Iraq. They both expressed concerns about the plans for a post-invasion strategy, but nonetheless they both felt that the war would be worth it. Friedman has admitted he was wrong to trust Bush, has Juan Cole ever done the same? Yet no one is calling Cole a neo-con or a fascist. If fact, his articles appear right here on CD.
BTW I have read Friedman's piece in the NYT and I think it's far more rational the Greenwald's critique. I think Greenwald's main problem is that his anti-Israel and Pro-Hamas bias comes across in everything he writes. I found Friedman's comments to be more even handed, with more give and take for the Israelis and Palestinians. Consider that he also wrote this,
"Israel de facto recognizes Hamas’s right to rule Gaza and to provide for the well-being and security of the people of Gaza — which was actually Hamas’s original campaign message, not rocketing Israel. And, in return, Hamas has to signal a willingness to assume responsibility for a lasting cease-fire and to abandon efforts to change the strategic equation with Israel by deploying longer and longer range rockets. That’s the only deal. Let’s give it a try."
It's great idea, right? How can you argue it's not diplomatic or fair?
DaveBronstein,
Okay. So if you oppose the bailout, what would your solution be?
I agree that Paulson shouldn't have just gotten a "blank check". But he conned Congress and Congress fell for it. However, besides the issue of who controls the money, I still believe the bailout was necessary.
If the Democrats have to slash entitlements, it's not because they are cruel or elitist. It's because Bush has destroyed our economy, and they have to clean up his mess.
Obama may support NAFTA, but he also wants to re-negotiate it so that it has stronger health and safety standards.
The Democrats opposed Bush's tax cuts (and Obama will not renew them), but they didn't control Congress until 2006, after the tax cuts were in place.
"Can you name for me one or two specific things that Democrats have done in the last 40 years, that significantly benefited working people?"
40 years is too easy. How about from the last four years? 1) Raising the minimum wage and 2) defeating the privatization of social security.
"Can you name a single issue on which they seriously opposed Bush, in the last 8 years?"
Torture. (along with many other issues)
"In which of his crimes were they not complicit?"
There were a few Democrats like Lieberman, who got a little too cozy with Bush. But for the most part I don't think the Democrats were as bad as the Republicans, and wouldn't say they were criminal accomplices. It all depends on how you define criminality.
"Why do you imagine they didn't try to impeach him?"
I think Obama's adviser Cass Sunstein laid out a pretty good case against Glen Greenwald as to why that is. Here's the link:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/22/obama_adviser_cass_sunstein_debates_glenn
"40 years is too easy. How about from the last four years? 1) Raising the minimum wage and 2) defeating the privatization of social security."
Don't look now but Obama is silently falling into the trap of bringing the idea of privatizing ss back.