A congressional double standard on incitement

[shaayecanaan]

'This week, in response to the highly publicized murder of a Jewish family in the West Bank settlement of Itamar, a group of 27 U.S. senators signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her to press Palestinian leaders to end "incitement directed against Jews and Israel within the Palestinian media, mosques, and schools." According to the letter, the grisly killings in Itamar (for which no suspects, Palestinian or otherwise, have been identified), "is a sobering reminder that words matter, and that Palestinian incitement against Jews and Israel can lead to violence and terror."

As evidence for the allegation of pervasive anti-Jewish incitement in Palestinian society, the letter cites a recent, official ceremony honoring Delal Mughrabi, a perpetrator of the 1978 coastal road massacre in Israel, as well as a payment of financial compensation made by the Palestinian Authority to the family of a deceased terror suspect.

Such actions are deserving of condemnation. But if it is indeed the case that "words matter" -and if the elimination of violent and dehumanizing rhetoric is, as the letter says, "critical to establishing the conditions a secure and lasting peace"-then what can explain the senators' silence on the veritable carnival of hate and racist incitement against Arabs and Palestinians that has lately engulfed Israeli society?

Anyone who reads Israel's press these days will find it difficult to do so without chancing upon yet another outrageous example of such incitement. Be it the declaration of Rabbi Dov Lior, a senior authority on Jewish law in the Religious Zionism movement, that the offspring of non-Jews possess "genetic traits" of "cruelty and barbarism"; or an open letter signed by dozens of Israel's municipal chief rabbis calling on Jews "to refrain from renting or selling apartments to non-Jews"; or the wives of those state-sponsored rabbis urging Jewish girls not to date, work with, or perform national service in the company of Arabs; or even news of the publication of "The King's Torah," a theological text widely endorsed by settler rabbis that authorizes the killing of non-Jewish children and babies, since "it is clear that they will grow to harm us."'

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/01/a_congressional_double_standard_on_incitement

[King_David]

1. Yes because ridiculous statements by crazy Rabis'

representing tiny fringe minorities within Israel are equivalent to slitting a live toddlers throat?

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

2. you mean like the ones at Rishon Lezion? oh that's right

they were only stabbed with enough force to pin them to their beds and oh it was an Israeli nonArab who did so never mind..........

[Shaktimaan]

29. How is that related though?

To the best of my knowledge that event was based on a personal grudge and had nothing to do with incitement at all. If the recent killings turn out to be committed by an Arab who did it to settle a personal score then the two would share a common thread. But if they turn out to be politically motivated killings then it seems perfectly fair to call out the Palestinians for incitement.

Just because murders occur in Israel doesn't excuse the violent rhetoric coming from Arab sources, or make criticizing it hypocritical.

[shaayecanaan]

4. You obviously didn't read the article...

it goes on to quote Ovadiah Yosef, the spiritual leader of Shas (which generally receives about 9% of the popular vote in Israeli elections):-

Could it be that the senators who so rightfully condemn the glorification of violence when it issues from an obscure Palestinian official are simply unaware of the multiple proclamations of such a prominent figure as Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas party (a member of Prime Minister Netanyahu's governing coalition) and a former Chief Rabbi of Israel's Sephardi Jewish community? "It is forbidden to be merciful to ," Yosef was quoted as saying in 2001, "You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable."

[LeftishBrit]

5. I think the argument is about *incitement* on both sides

Not that incitement by a group is equivalent to actual murder.

My own view is that the senators were right as far as it went to condemn the sort of incitement that could have led to the Itamar massacre; and they could also worry about incitements on the other side. BUT condemning incitements can begin at home, and in view of the near-murder of Gabrielle Giffords and the actual massacre of six others; the murder of a Mexican immigrant child and her father in Arizona; the murder of Dr Tiller; and a few other such incidents, perhaps the senators should really be worrying more about extremists' incitements to violence in America itself.

[shaayecanaan]

7. I quite agree...

the principled thing to do would be to remove the plank from their own eye. The next best thing would be to condemn Israeli and Palestinian extremism with equanimity. Unfortunately the US senators seem incapable of either.

[Dick Dastardly]

28. They were talking about PA sponsored incitement. In any case there is no equivilancy on

any level anyway.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. You need to read the article. There's some extremist rabbis who are state sponsored...

There definately is equivalency, and I'm not sure how anyone could try to argue otherwise....

[shaayecanaan]

34. Of course not...

moral equivalency is a bizarre leftist notion that the lives of Arabs and Jews should be regarded as being of equivalent value. Only bleeding-heart hippy beatniks believe in that.

[shira]

8. Is it incitement to lie and exaggerate about Israel's actions...

Like the discredited Goldstone Report?

Just curious...

[LeftishBrit]

9. No. Nor is it incitement to lie and exaggerate about Palestinian actions...

or British actions, or my personal actions, or anyone else's actions.

If serious and deliberate, it may be slander or libel; but incitement should be reserved for actually suggesting that an individual or group deserves to be physically attacked, injured, or killed.

[shira]

24. How about the old blood libel vs. Jews? Incitement to act against Jews, or not? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

25. The literal blood libel, yes.

And I would extend that to some similar accusations: 'The Jews murder people for their organs'; 'Israel secretly orchestrated 9-11'.

But not to every criticism, even unfair ones, of Israel. Not even every antisemitic remark, for that matter.

[shira]

26. You don't consider the false accusation that Israel killed civilians as a matter of policy...

...a blood libel?

I agree WRT organ theft, starting 911, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion....but also equating Israel with Nazi Germany, accusing Israel of genocide vs. Palestinians, Israel being an apartheid state even towards its own Arab citizens...

That's hateful incitement.

[shaayecanaan]

27. You stated below that the Itamar murderer was carrying out the official policy

of the Palestinian Authority:-

"In Gaza and the WB, their extremist counterparts clearly represent government policy."*

Could you imagine Netanyahu saying something like this? I couldn't. I'm not even sure Lieberman would. Perhaps the only people to believe this would be the Kahanist groups in the Knesset - the National Union and their ilk - which says quite a lot, in my view.



*(To clarify, I have nothing against this criticism applying to Hamas in Gaza; however to apply it to the PA amounts to a smear or a "libel", if you like)

[shira]

33. Check out PMW and you'll see that in Arabic, it's official PA policy...

The PA controls the media, political and religious institutions that spew such incitement on a daily basis and rewards it with naming sports stadiums, schools, and streets after mass murderers.

That's the PA doing so.

And the Israeli government has for years been bringing this issue up.

[shaayecanaan]

35. If eulogising terrorists means that terrorism is "official government policy"

then Israel is as guilty of holding such a policy as the Palestinians:-

“Whoever sponsors and supports naming a square in Ramallah after a terrorist who murdered dozens of Israelis on the Coastal Road encourages terror,” said Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in March. He called on Palestinian leaders to “stop the incitement.”

But four years ago, when Etzel veterans commemorated the 60th anniversary of the King David bombing, Netanyahu, scion of a proud Revisionist family, was the featured speaker. “It’s very important to make the distinction between terror groups and freedom fighters, and between terrorist action and legitimate military action,” he told the audience.

IN THE hypocrisy that characterizes Israel’s view of Palestinians, this is the height of it: The greatest denouncers of Palestinian violence against Israel also tend to be the greatest defenders of pre-state Zionist violence against Britain.

After electing Begin prime minister, we elected Yitzhak Shamir, who had been one of the leadership trio of Lehi (the Hebrew acronym for “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”). Lehi went Etzel one better – not only did it kill for Israeli statehood, it killed after statehood, too. On September 17, 1948, Lehi men in Jerusalem shot to death Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN’s envoy to the Middle East (who, as a Swedish diplomat during World War II, had saved many thousands of Jews from the Nazi death camps).

At Lehi’s 70th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem last month, National Union MK Arye Eldad (whose father, Yisrael, had been one of Shamir’s partners in the leadership) said from the podium: “Count Bernadotte wanted to internationalize Jerusalem. In response, Lehi killed him. With his death, the concept of taking Jerusalem away from the Jewish people died with him.”

Hooray. And after Yitzhak Shamir dies, there will be highways, neighborhoods, hospitals and schools named after him, too.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=182933

[shira]

36. Moral relativism

You seriously think the King David Hotel bombing against British officers of the military high command is no different than the Itamar or Sami Kuntar massacres, or school and bus bombings against civilians?

And that Israel "celebrates" or cheers on the deaths of innocents in the same way as the PA?

======

Wait, you probably believe the King David Hotel bombing was a deliberate attack on innocent civilians that had no military purpose - right?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Surely yr not going to try to deny that the King David Hotel bombing was terrorism?

If so, I'd be interested to hear what yr working definition of terrorism is....

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

42. Not terror....

Terror is action aimed at civilians for political reasons with no military purpose.

The KD hotel bombing was aimed at British officers of the high command. That's not to say the aftermath and deaths that resulted were not criminal - they were!

If you're thinking terror, the Bernodette assassination fits that bill.

[shaayecanaan]

45. So you admit that former Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir was a terrorist?

given that he approved the assassination of Bernadotte?

[shira]

46. Definitely. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

49. Astounding...finally a straight answer to a straight question...

Lets try one better:-

If Israel were to name a street, tree, park bench or put Shamir's face (or that of other Lehi figures) on a postage stamp, it would be guilty of eulogising its terrorists in exactly the same way that you have accused the Palestinians of doing, right?

[shira]

51. Shamir alone? No...

That would be commemorating his days as PM, not his actions before 1948 - but what he did for Israel afterwards.

If streets, schools, or sports stadiums were named after Lehi or Irgun, or if all of Lehi's top men were on a stamp, park bench, etc... then Yes.

[shaayecanaan]

53. So if all Lehi's top men/terrorists had their own postage stamps...

such as these ones:-



http://www.israelphilately.org.il/catalog/series.asp?id=416

then the answer is yes?

[shaayecanaan]

55. pwned (nt)

[Lithos]

57. For the curious

The list of names:

Mordechai Alkach, Eliahu Bet Tzuri, Naaman Belkind, Shlomo Ben-Yosef, Yosef Basri, Moshe Barazani, Dov Gruner, Yechiel Drezner, Yaacov Weiss, Avshalom Haviv, Eliahu Hakim, Eli Cohen, Yosef Lishanski, Dr. Moshe Marzouk, Meir Nakar, Hanna Szenes, Shmuel Azaar, Meir Feinstein, Shalom Salih, Eliezer Kashani

About half of these were associated with Lehi or Irgun, of those all were what are considered Olei Hagardom - (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olei_Hagardom) - which is synonymous with being condemned to the gallows by the British. The Wiki article has information about most of them. None were part of Lehi or Irgun leadership.

The others are clustered in time around WWI, WWII (killed in Europe), and the 1950's 1960's. Of these, Eli Cohen would perhaps be the most well known here as being the Mossad Spy who rose to great prominence in the Syrian government.

[shira]

58. Ridiculous.

Next thing you know, Obama will be identified as a terrorist for his role in ordering Pakistani drone attacks - and anyone or any organization (public or private) honoring him will be accused of supporting terrorism.

Of course, the stamps are much worse...

:eyes:

[shaayecanaan]

60. So just to get this clear...

Eliahu Bet-Zuri (second picture): Member of the terrorist group Lehi. Remembered for assassinating Lord Moyne, British minister for the Middle East.

Shlomo Ben-Josef (fourth picture) : Failed terrorist and member of Irgun. Remembered for an attempted terrorist attack in which he attempted to blow up a bus full of Arab civilians using a hand grenade. Was an advocate for "total war" in which he argued that Arab civilians, including children, were fair game.

Yaacov Weiss (ninth picture): Member of Irgun. Participated in the Acre prison break, for which he was tried and executed. In retaliation, Irgun lynched two kidnapped British officers. The Irgun then booby-trapped their bodies with an explosive which killed the officer that tried to recover their body.

Eliahu Yakim (eleventh picture): Member of Lehi. Remembered for the attempted assassination of the British High Commissioner, and also participated in the killing of Lord Moyne, British Minister for the Middle East. He was commemorated by having a street named after him in Israel.

Moshe Marzouk (fourteenth photo): Employed by the Israeli government in the 1950s. Remembered for conducting a series of false-flag terrorist bombings in Egypt that were intended to be mistaken for the work of Egyptian nationalists, which came to be known as the Lavon affair.

Shmuel Azar (sixteenth photo): Also participated in the Lavon affair.

Meir Feinstein (seventeenth photo): Failed terrorist who was apprehended trying to plant an IED in the Jerusalem railway station.

To wit:-

1) You don't think that these people are terrorists, and you don't consider what they did to be terrorism - in fact you consider the notion to be "ridiculous".

2) You consider that Barrack Obama is more of a terrorist than the persons identified above.

Are you sure you don't want to retract your last post? You were going so well for a moment there.

[shira]

63. What's ridiculous is you trying to equate Israel with Hamas/PLO...

Those were terrorist acts committed by those men prior to 1948, but in no way is Israel "celebrating" what they did - no more than they have done so WRT Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein. See, if Israel were really like the PLO/Hamas WRT incitement, those 2 men would have sports stadiums, schools, and streets named after them - with the blessing of the Israeli government. Israeli government radio, TV, and press would continue lauding Kahane and Goldstein's achievements and attempt to incite others to do the same....if Israel were no better than the PLO/Hamas.

I didn't claim Obama was a terrorist, but I'm rather surprised YOU don't believe he is, considering what has happened WRT the drone attacks in Pakistan. If any Israeli leader ordered that over the OT, I have no doubt you'd label the leader and his actions as terrorist. So how exactly does Obama get a pass if Netanyahu were to do the same thing and be branded a terrorist as a result?

[shaayecanaan]

67. So putting terrorists on postage stamps...

is not celebrating the achievements of those terrorists (although you did seem to be prepared to admit as much two days ago).

Unless of course the Palestinians start putting their terrorists on postage stamps, in which case they are celebrating the achievements of terrorists.

So terrorism, basically, is whatever Arabs do.

Thank you for the exchange. It certainly has been illuminating.

[oberliner]

47. So was former Palestinian President Yasser Arafat

They both bragged about it at the time.

Later in life, both of them put forward peace plans.

[shaayecanaan]

50. So was Menachem Begin

and so were many others on both sides. Certainly many Jews, including later Israeli president Chaim Weizmann, approved of the King David Hotel bombing and considered terrorism an indispensable component of any war of national liberation.

[oberliner]

52. Good thing no one here supports that kind of thing today

Certainly no one on a board like this one would consider terrorism to be an indispensable component of any war of national liberation in this day and age.

Even making an implication of that kind, I believe, is a violation of the rules here.

[shaayecanaan]

54. I'm not often accused of being an apologist for the 1940s Jewish underground...

but there is a first time for everything on this board, it seems.

Part of what makes the place so interesting, I guess. It certainly seems to attract a fair bit of traffic compared to some of the others.

[oberliner]

61. 2011 Palestinian nationalist crowd

Certainly you wouldn't be implying support for any of those techniques you cited from the 1940's being utilized in that struggle.

[shaayecanaan]

62. You've got the wrong man, pup...

if you cast your eyes above, you'll realise I'm not the one trying to rationalise away the planting of an IED at a train station as somehow not being terrorism. However, I must say your colleague does seem to be sailing rather close to the wind in that respect.

I have always viewed attacks on civilians as brutal, cowardly and unmanly - and I come from a place where holding such an opinion is actually a matter of consequence.

FWIW, it took me a long time to realise in my heart of hearts that the Muslim children slain by Christian hands bled just as red as me and mine, just as red as the Christian dead. That they were just as alive when living and just as dead when dead. When I finally came to terms with this it set me free and made me glad.

Unless you come to terms with the fact that the dark angels in your nature are just as dark - no more, no less - than the dark angels in theirs - you will never be free.

Jesus said a word or two about this in the Gospel of Thomas. This passage kept running through my head at certain material times and I have never been able to forget it:-

"If you bring forth that which is within you
That which survives
Will save you.
But if you do not bring forth that which is within you
That which remains
Will destroy you."

[oberliner]

65. Not appreciating the "pup" reference

Comparing someone to a dog, not very civil IMHO.

[shaayecanaan]

68. Then you have my apologies

it was merely my attempt to sound convivial. I was not intending to compare you to a dog.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Is that yr own personal definition of terrorism? It's flawed...

Terror is action aimed at civilians for political reasons with no military purpose.

'...with no military purpose.' That definition you used exludes anything that could be described as having a military purpose from being terrorism. That would mean that your definition would mean that something can't be terrorism if it's carried out by the armed forces of any country and that there's no such thing as state terrorism or state-sanctioned terrorism....

There's no one agreed upon definition of terrorism, but all of the decent ones I've seen all have one thing in common, and that is that they try to define what terrorism is, not who is excluded from the definition. How I define it is as being violence aimed at civilians with the purpose of causing fear and is usually politically motivated....

The argument you used for not believing the King David Hotel bombing was terrorism could also be used to argue that the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 was even more so not an act of terrorism. The Pentagon was far more a military target than the King David Hotel was....

[shira]

66. Yeah it is...

I'd go further to include PREMEDITATED, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent civilians.

Do you believe it was Israeli policy during OCL to perpetrate terror vs. civilians and civilian infrastructure?

[LeftishBrit]

32. No. Unless you're going to use the term for almost anything that is said about any side in a war

Calling a country an 'apartheid state' is not a *blood* libel.

Comparing people to Nazis is not a *blood* libel; and is only incitement if accompanied by calls for armed revolution. People often call anyone from their own government that introduced a smoking ban, to the neighbours who complained about their noisy party, 'Nazis'. It is very annoying to anyone who knows anything about the real Nazis, but it's not incitement. Run-of-the-mill comparisons of Obama to Hitler are not incitement; the teabaggers' 'Hitler' comparisons may become incitements when accompanied by calls for 'Second Amendment remedies'. But even then, they are not blood libels.

I think that using the 'genocide' word for either Israelis or Palestinians is obviously untrue, anti-peace, a trivialization of real genocides, and under some circumstances incitement. But it's not a blood libel.

As all modern wars end up killing civilians, whether targeting them or not, I think that any accusation, in any war of 'killing civilians as a matter of policy' is unjust only in degree. Deciding to have a war is in itself a policy that will kill civilians. It is certainly worse to deliberately attack civilian targets - but any war is to some degree against civilians.

And I think that equating Goldstone with 'blood libel' perpetrators is just as false a comparison as comparing Israeli leaders to theocratic dictators or saying that Israel is an apartheid state. I think that all sides could do with toning down the rhetoric.

Do you think that accusing Iraq of having WMD was (a) incitement and (b) a blood libel? For myself, I think it was the first but not the second.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Well said. I totally agree...

It does get a bit tiring to see the terms you mentioned in yr post being flung around willy-nilly with no thought as to what they actually mean...

[shira]

43. Of course I disagree...

The charge that Israel targets civilians intentionally is a blood libel IMHO, as it maliciously portrays Israelis (Jews) as the new Nazis running a Nazi state (and an Apartheid, colonialist, racist one) that ultimately must be destroyed and can no longer be allowed to exist.

[Lithos]

44. I am leaving this as is

Even though this sub-thread involves references to Nazi Germany, it will stay as it is a discussion of the meta issue, not a direct comparison.

Regards,

Lithos
DU Moderator

[azurnoir]

3. I would say that making the assassin of a UN represenative Prom Minister

could be called incitement wonder if his widow Shulamit Shamir got or gets a stipend from the government?

[LeftishBrit]

10. No, once again (see my reply to Shira). The term 'incitement' in my view should be restricted to

speech or material that directly encourages violence against a particular group or individual. It does not include harsh or even slanderous statements, unless they suggest that violence is a suitable option; nor does it include the promotion of former members of terrorist organizations to high positions, unless they are continuing to call for terrorist activity.

[azurnoir]

11. I was using 'standards' similar to the ones used by the Senators in their letter

here are the examples they cited

On March 9, 2011, PA President Mahmoud Abbas' advisor, Sabri Saidam, delivered a speech in which he emphasized that Palestinian weapons must be turned towards Israel. Saidam reportedly demanded that the Palestinian people be attentive to the living conditions of martyrs' families and said that the anniversary of the death of Dalal Mughrabi (one of the perpetrators of a 1978 coastal highway massacre) should be marked by inaugurating a square in her name in the city of El-Bireh.

On February 9, 2011, the official Palestinian television station broadcast a clip from a campaign entitled "Women as Exemplars," during which Dalal Mughrabi (see above) was extolled. In the summer of 2010, several children's summer camps were named after her.

On January 24, 2011, the Governor of Jenin issued a Presidential Grant worth $2,000 to the family of a Palestinian terrorist, Khaldoun Samoudi, who was killed while trying to detonate two bombs against Israeli soldiers at the Beka'ot Crossing.

On January 2, 2011, Al Hayat Al-Jadida reported that Azzam Al-Ahmed, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, attended a gathering on the 46th anniversary of the establishment of Fatah during which models of settlement buildings were blown up. He reportedly reviewed terrorist attacks perpetrated by Fatah and said that, "Fatah is a mass movement which believed in popular revolution and wrested its right to use all means of resistance in order to achieve its aim."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=347651&mesg_id=347858

only the claims against Sabri Saidam could be called in any way an incitement

[oberliner]

13. Prom Minister?

Is that the person in charge of school dances?

[azurnoir]

14. yep sure enough that's what I meant

not hmmm latch on to typo's interesting

[oberliner]

17. A sense of humor is a terrible thing to waste

That was a heck of an amusing typo!

[shira]

6. This article is ridiculous...

America has its Glenn Becks and Michael Savages too.

The difference is that Beck and Savage are not mouthpieces for the government and they are roundly criticized and minimized as bigots/racists throughout America's media and free press. Same as Israel.

In Gaza and the WB, their extremist counterparts clearly represent government policy - there is no freedom of press to criticize such monsters - and mass murderers who act upon such incitement (imagine Beck and Savage now as a militant David Duke) are rewarded and celebrated as martyrs and heroes, and have sports stadiums, schools, and streets named after them.

Let's not pretend there's any moral equivalency going on here...

[oberliner]

12. MIDDLE EAST: A Sabbath of Terror

Palestinian death squad lands in Israel with a savage message

Their orders were to kill until they themselves were killed. And thus last week a Palestinian suicide mission left a grisly trail of carnage along Israel's main coastal highway from Haifa to Tel Aviv. Slipping ashore from the Mediterranean on the afternoon of the Sabbath, the terrorists hijacked two buses filled with tourists and sightseers, took them on a wild ride down the road toward Tel Aviv, shooting along the way at everyone in sight, and finally destroyed one bus in an orgy of fire and death. Official statistics put the dead at 37 (all but a few of them civilians, among them at least 10 children) and 76 wounded—a toll that exceeded the 1972 Munich massacre (11 dead) and the slaughter at a Ma'alot school in 1974 (26). It was the worst terrorist attack in Israel's history.

The Sabbath massacre came on the eve of Israeli Premier Menachem Begin's scheduled departure for Washington, where he was to confer with President Carter this week on the derailed Middle East peace talks. Begin immediately went into a huddle with members of his Cabinet, then announced that he would postpone his visit to Washington for at least a week. Deeply shocked by the massacre in the midst of renewed efforts toward a Middle East peace settlement, the world waited anxiously for Israel's reaction, which in the past has been to retaliate for terrorism on its soil with severe blows against the Palestinians. Begin finished a grim TV and radio report to the Israeli nation by vowing: "We shall not forget."

The timing of the attack left no doubt about the terrorists' purpose: to sabotage any attempt by Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to move toward a peace that would ignore or bypass Palestinian interests. In fact, the attack will make any peace at all more difficult. Certainly, it will reinforce Israel's resistance to any kind of Palestinian state on its borders, make the Israelis distrust all Arabs more than ever, and stiffen Begin's stance toward making further Israeli concessions in any peace talks. The attack seemed to be the opening salvo of a new policy by Palestinian leaders, launched in Tripoli last December at the Arab states' rejectionist summit, to carry to Israel's soil the war against Sadat's peace initiative. Sure enough, shortly after Saturday's bloodbath, Al-Fatah, the commando group within Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, claimed responsibility for the operation from its headquarters in Beirut.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919454,00.html#ixzz1IZSTnAMm

The author of this piece was not even alive when this incident took place. Hard for a 20something American to really have a sense of context here.

A masters degree in Near Eastern Studies can only take you so far.

[azurnoir]

15. What does Goldstone know now? - Abdul-Hakim Salah

Is it possible that the suggested new version of the Goldstone report could end up blaming the 29 victims of the Samouni family for sending the wrong signals to the Israeli drones?

The family had been hoarded into a single home over the course of three days, as fighting raged in northern Gaza. On the fourth day the home holding the extended family was struck by an Israeli air strike, wiping them out.

Speaking of the Samouni family, Goldstone boasts in his article that the Israeli officer who ordered the attack on the family is being investigated. "While the length of this investigation is frustrating, it appears that an appropriate process is underway, and I am confident that if the officer is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly."

Excuse my comparison, but this is like investigating a truck driver who runs over pedestrians, and his lawyer tries to convince juries that he did not see them cross the road because he was busy talking to his girlfriend. Investigations in Israel will never find the officer guilty of intentionally shelling civilians. At best, this officer might be found guilty of negligence, and, "accordingly," Israel's response will be a verbal apology.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=375159

[oberliner]

16. Do you find this hilarious in a cynical way?

How the Palestinian opinion of Goldstone has changed so quickly?

[azurnoir]

18. I find it neither amusing nor surprising n/t

[oberliner]

19. And yet the reverse you find hysterical

What is that all about?

[azurnoir]

20. Did I say hysterical ? your skill in word change to suit needs is admirable

eta I also note that you make this concerning a comment I made on another thread currently running on this forum, there for there is nothing immediately available for actual comparison

[oberliner]

21. Hilarious but not hysterical?

My thesaurus lists hilarious and hysterical as synonyms.

Thesaurus listing:

hysterical: causing or intended to cause laughter <some of the things little kids come out with are hysterical>

Synonyms antic, chucklesome, comedic, comic, comical, droll, farcical, hilarious, humoristic, humorous, hysterical (also hysteric), killing, laughable, ludicrous, ridiculous, riotous, risible, screaming, sidesplitting, uproarious

Dictionary listing:

Hilarious: Extremely amusing.

Hysterical: Extremely funny.

Can you explain the distinction you were making?

[azurnoir]

22. well hysterical would denote something that could

be misleading as to my actual statement as I believe I said hilarious in a cynical way however as noted in edit above it was on a different thread and as far as I know it is against DU to link to and carry arguments between threads, but that could be a "dogwhistle" of a different note

[oberliner]

23. Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about

Not the first time. I blame myself.

Dogwhistles? Who are the dogs in question?

I doubt anyone is paying attention to our exchange here.

Is it really an argument?

[Violet_Crumble]

31. The US Congress having double standards on the I/P issue? That's no shocker...

Their one-sided and blind 'support' of Israel is a bit pathetic. What's even more pathetic is watching some Americans try to argue that the US Congress isn't heavily biased towards Israel...

[oberliner]

39. The US Congress does not have double standards on the I/P issue

There is neither one-sided, nor blind support of Israel in Congress.

The US Congress is not at all biased on this issue.

[shaayecanaan]

41. I actually had four reactions to this post in the course of about ten seconds...

The first was spontaneous laughter. Then my second thought was that this was really a sophisticated attempt at irony (perhaps evoking Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook" quote). But I scoured these two sentences for any hint at irony and could not find any.

My third thought was that someone had hijacked your account in order to discredit you by making an overtly ridiculous statement. But that would be unlikely. So my fourth and final reaction was and is incredulity - that you could actually believe something so utterly preposterous.

[oberliner]

48. Not at all surprising

I'll leave you to it.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. What's not at all surprising?n/t

[oberliner]

64. That there were four reactions to the post in ten seconds