A conflict-of-interest concern that’s been rumbling around The New York Times was dragged into the open over the weekend by the paper’s public editor, Clark Hoyt. In his Sunday column, Hoyt confirmed what the Web site Electronic Intifada reported a few weeks ago: the son of Ethan Bronner, the NYT’s bureau chief in Jerusalem, has enlisted in the Israeli Defense Forces. And, after weighing the issue—he noted the complaints of bias that inevitably follow any reporting on the Middle East, his own belief in the quality and integrity of Bronner’s work, Bronner’s disclosure of the news to his editors, and the Times’s internal ethics guidelines—Hoyt also recommended that Bronner be reassigned. “The Times sent a reporter overseas to provide disinterested coverage of one of the world’s most intense and potentially explosive conflicts, and now his son has taken up arms for one side,” he wrote. “Even the most sympathetic reader could reasonably wonder how that would affect the father, especially if shooting broke out.”
In an unusual step, Times executive editor Bill Keller responded publicly to Hoyt, notifying him—and the paper’s readers—that his suggestion would not be followed. Keller wrote:
You and everyone you interviewed for your column concurs that Ethan Bronner is fully capable of continuing to cover his beat fairly. Your concern is that readers will not be capable of seeing it that way. That is probably true for some readers. The question is whether those readers should be allowed to deny the rest of our audience the highest quality of reporting.
We want to know: Who do you agree with? Would the Times be doing a disservice to readers by moving a veteran reporter off one of the world’s most important stories? Or is the appearance of conflict—or the risk of actual conflict—in this case so great that Bronner must be moved to another beat?
I think I'm on Keller's side on this one. I'd rather let Bronner do the job and then judge his work for what it is than preemptively decide that he's got to be moved off the beat.
On the other hand, I'm glad Hoyt brought it up and forced the paper to acknowledge the issue and state a position. No matter where you come down, disclosure's appropriate here. Sounds like Bronner did the right thing by telling his bosses; the Times, in turn, should have let readers know, especially once people started asking.
#1 Posted by greg marx, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 06:54 PM
'let Bronner do the job and then judge'? What has he been doing until now? Oh wait, we actually know:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/2359
#2 Posted by Eduardo Reis, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 07:05 PM
Ethan Bronner is far too biased to report on Israel! In point of fact, the New York Times itself is far too biased. Falk and Friel have done a fine job of pointing out that bias.
I note that it's a kind of hard to distance yourself from Israel and to write objectively about it when your own son has taken up arms to support a racist state. We're not talking about someone whiling away his youth in a country at peace with the world and with its own people, say, Sweden.
#3 Posted by Wayne B. Kraft, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 07:10 PM
He has proven time and time again his bias! The notion that his work is respectable and unbiased is laughable.
#4 Posted by Victor, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 07:13 PM
Since there is so much acrimony regarding Bronner, why doesn't the NYT just move him to another post? Then, if the NYT was really an objective paper, assign a Palestinian/American in his place... or an Arab...or a Muslim.
Don't tell me there aren't any good Arab/Palestinian reporters. There are dozens from Al Jazeera English, from other Arab stations and from Gaza. To suggest that only a Jew can cover this conflict, is, in itself, a racist idea.
Finally, we have a law in the U.S. that no U.S. citizen should serve in the military of another country. It's why many of us are outraged over Rahm Emanuel's service to Israel.
The NYT should take an ethical stand and move Bronner someplace else.
#5 Posted by Truegreta, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 07:20 PM
No, not "if shooting broke out." Shooting goes on all the time, despite the fact that casualties are overwhelmingly and lopsidedly on the Palestinian side. Bronner's son is not being conscripted, but volunteering as an American to serve in a foreign army that was just accused of war crimes. He will be engaged in enforcing an illegal occupation to wit-- if not worse. But really the point isn't if Bronner can continue to do his job; he's continuously displayed a bias for the Israeli narrative, which includes-- most importantly-- taking the IDF by its word on any given occasion, withholding essential information such as that the Israelis violated the 6-month ceasefire leading up to last year's war in Gaza (even according to Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev), and using deceptive and de-sensitizing language to promote the Israeli position ("retaliatory airstrikes to stop weapons smuggling", just to name an example that Bronner cites uncritically.) The fact that his kid is volunteering for an army accused of widespread abuses just confirms that Bronner is too invested in one party's narrative and interests. He's already embedded with the IDF. I almost feel sorry for Bronner at this point; the real people to blame here are the editors, who wouldn't hire anyone who didn't tow the line. Keller would rather further degrade his paper's already embattled reputation than do the right thing. Welcome to the 21st century: no one half way sane or informed believes that Israel's is the most moral army in the world. Thanks for insulting your readers' intelligence even further than you already have by enabling the Iraq war (two words: Judith. Miller.)
#6 Posted by Emily, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 08:46 PM
I'm frustrated by how this situation has been turned around, to the point where distinguished journalists are drawing comparisons based on the fact that Bronner is Jewish and accusing those who call for his reassignment anti-Semitic.
The fact is that, were Bronner Palestinian and his son joined any arm of Hamas, the NYT would consider this far more seriously. This is not about Bronner being Jewish; ethnicity and faith are not the question at hand. The question is, when dealing with a conflict as tenuous as this one already is, is Bronner likely to be biased in any way as a result of his son's affiliation with the IDF. I believe that such a possibility exists.
I also think that it's necessary to look beyond Bronner's current situation and ask whether or not the NYT gives fair treatment to the Middle East at all - beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't believe that they do - neither Bronner nor his American colleagues speak Arabic fluently, and while I'm not sure if they speak Hebrew, Israelis are far more likely to be able to communicate fluently in English than their Arab counterparts (for a variety of reasons). Thus, there is already a bias in reporting. Bronner does not have access to Palestinians the way he does Israelis.
I will add one more point, that I hope does not negate all that I've previously said. The IDF has recently confessed to the use of white phosphorus (which is essentially a war crime) and has been reported (by the Goldstone Report) to have committed war crimes. I don't say this to compare it to Palestinian behavior, which is irrelevant to my point. I say it because we are talking about a man whose son has just joined a military which is on trial in the public eye for war crimes. Can Bronner truly report fairly and accurately with that in mind?
The answer to all of the above questions should be a resounding "no."
#7 Posted by Jillian C. York, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 09:05 PM
I'm shocked, shocked to learn that the entire Middle East staff of the New York Times wasn't already enlisted in the Israel Defense Force.
I'm a regular reader of the Times and, therefore, I know only too well that bias, or the appearance thereof, are totally irrelevant. Israel is "the good guy,'' and all reporting will reflect that view. Vice versa, the Palestinians and their allies are "the bad guy'' and all reporting will, naturally (if ham-fistedly in many cases) reflect that as well.
Shouldn't ALL journalists join the IDF? Better yet, no one should be allowed to cover the conflict for the Times, at least, unless they personally have killed a Palestinian civilian. (Remember, the civilians HIDE among terrorists, so they're not always that easy to murder.)
What about that don't you people understand?
#8 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 12:48 AM
Would the Times allow a U.S.-based reporter, whose child joined one of the U.S. Armed Forces, to continue covering the U.S. military? Whatever the answer, it seems to me that the same principle should be followed for Bronner.
#9 Posted by K, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 01:36 PM
This whole debate is a tempest in a teapot. The only reason it is being discussed is because many liberals are anti-Israel.
Every single reporter at the NYT is a loyal member of a trade union. Is there a discussion to not allow them to write about unions, strikes, and similar conflicts? Of course not because unions are also liberal favorites.
#10 Posted by Libertarian1, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 02:40 PM
The question of whether this is a conflict of interest is easily resolved by simply asking how the Times would react if the kid had joined the other side. So I’ve rewritten the intro accordingly:
“The New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief has a son who has joined the armed wing of Hamas. The Times's public editor, Clark Hoyt, says this situation has the appearance of a conflict of interest, and the reporter should move to another beat. The paper's editor, Bill Keller, publicly disagreed, and defended his reporter's right to stay.”
Can anyone imagine Bill Keller doing this? Of course not – least of all Keller himself, who wouldn’t dream of sticking up for a reporter whose son had taken up arms for Hamas. In fact, he wouldn’t even reassign the reporter, he’d simply fire him.
So really, what this story illustrates is not just the reporter’s conflict of interest, but the entire New York Times’ conflict of interest in Middle Eastern reporting, because this is a paper that sees one people as legitimate and the other as criminal.
#11 Posted by Kevin Robb, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 04:15 PM
Kevin blithered: "The question of whether this is a conflict of interest is easily resolved by simply asking how the Times would react if the kid had joined the other side."
padikiller rings the Reality Bell: Both "sides" aren't equal here, Kevin.
You don't see IDF soldiers targeting unarmed babies at a Sbarro's for murder. You do see such monstrous behavior on the other "side".
Your moral equivalency dodge fails for utter lack of equivalency.
Israel may or may not deserve to stay where it is (I don't have a horse in the theological race). However there is no question that Hamas and Fatah are filthy, baby-killing terrorist outfits bent on genocide.
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 04:24 PM
Bronner should be removed to cover another important story China!
The issue of conflict is very real and stifling. The issue of the coverage of the middle east - or the lack of coverage by the NYT is a continues problem.
2/10 The Center for Constitiional Rights file a UN petition aganst the building of "Tolerance Musuem" over a 12th century Cemetery which has not been covered by the NYT.
The coverage of Egypt is particulary silent as to its role in suppressing its' citizens - or why US tax payers are paying their goventment(Egypt) billions to slience its citizens why - it is left unsaid.
Again the question should not be why American message is not reaching the Arab world as your article states: Hearts, Minds, and the Satellite Dish
America’s televised message in the Arab world is dull and poorly managed
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/hearts_minds_and_the_satellite.php?page=all&print=true RATHER the question should be why the messages or the news from the Arab or Muslim countries is not reaching America.
This lack of transparency is overwhelming it is hurting free press and the very institutions that are important to the American Democratic process .
It is the obligations of Journalist, escpeically at CJR to be honest with its readers. It is clear from articles like " The Smell of Paradise" where this magazine stands. The suffering on all sides was really made a mockerly with such offensive aricles. Furthermore, if Taghreed is what the NYT or CJR as being fair to both side seems -- is very scrary to the state of Journalism and the responsibility have to the trueth no matter how difficult it may be to all . Bronner should go! And real issues should be covered with transpancy, honesty and integrity - this is the only way that issues could be resolved for all sides of any issue. Anything short is a mockery!
"The Smell of Paradise"
#13 Posted by wishingforrealjsournalism, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 05:46 PM
Padkiller obviously gets his news on the mid-east conflict from the New York times, which like all major media in the United States is completely one sided in their reporting. Their coverage of Israel's operation cast lead last winter was a joke.
#14 Posted by Reina, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 05:50 PM
Reina wrote: Padkiller obviously gets his news on the mid-east conflict from the New York times, which like all major media in the United States is completely one sided in their reporting.
padikiller apologizes: Sorry Reina...
I missed the article about the underage IDF soldiers who are recruited to blow themselves up in from of restaurants in order to kill babies...
How about a link?
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 06:26 PM
Bill Keller's response is correct in principle, as far as it goes, but the real point here is that most of the US mainstream media is laughably biased in favour of Israel. It's normal - the US has always had an affinity with Israel and post 9/11, all Arabs and Muslims became "the enemy". The Bronner imbroglio shows that public opinion is now shifting in another direction. It also come at a time when, with the rapdi development of the web, the NYT has 2 audiences, its core newspaper-buying American audience, which traditionally favours Israel, hence the paper's own slant, and the global, well-educated, smart and English-speaking web audience, much of which is more sympathetic to the Palestinians. In the past it has been easy to dismiss this growing multicultural global intelligentsia, it's not so easy any more.
Thus, neither Keller nor Hoyt addresses the real question. Hoyt talks about the "appearance of conflict of interest". But people are only looking for "evidence" of a conflict of interest because they already believe the reporting is biased in the first place, based on its actual content. Keller disagrees because that bias is his newspaper's default position.
The NYT's repeated gaffes and mea culpas over the past 10 years reflect the angst with which the perviously uberconfident society it comes from is facing both its own hubris and the development of a multi-polar world.
#16 Posted by Tom Spender, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 11:31 PM
Thank you padikiller for that explanation of why bias is irrelevant. Israel is the good guy, and Palestinians are the bad guy. Padikiller, like me, knows that because he READS THE NEW YORK TIMES!! Their coverage makes it crystal clear that details like whose land it really is, death tolls, colonization, taxation, corruption, international law -- none of it matters a whit, because, as padikiller explains, Israel are the good guys, the Palestinians are the bad guys.
Like I said before, a more interesting question is what the heck newspapers are doing covering the conflict at all. Shouldn't they be rolling up their sleeves up and directly murdering Palestinian civilians? I mean, like padikillers says, they're the "BAD" guys...
#17 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 03:02 AM
His son's enlistment gives Bonner a stake in Israel . Maybe he had one before , that I don't know , but raising his son to become an Israeli soldier speaks volumes . And what is the story on US citizens joining a foreign army actively engaged in hostilities with allies of ours .
#18 Posted by John Joyce, CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 03:28 AM
His son's enlistment gives Bonner a stake in Israel . Maybe he had one before , that I don't know , but raising his son to become an Israeli soldier speaks volumes . And what is the story on US citizens joining a foreign army actively engaged in hostilities with allies of ours .
#19 Posted by John Joyce, CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 03:29 AM
H. Clement Beaverman wrote: "Shouldn't they be rolling up their sleeves up and directly murdering Palestinian civilians? I mean, like padikillers says, they're the "BAD" guys..."
padikiller reiterates: You liberals rely upon prevarication. You can't argue without it.
Not only have I never mentioned "Palestinians", but I made it clear that I do not take a position on Israel's right to govern. I merely noted that Hamas is a filthy, murderous, terrorist organization that does not suffer comparison to the IDF. That's just the reality, Dude. Suck it up and squeeze it into your neurons. You don't see the IDF launching rockets randomly into residential neighborhoods. You don't see IDF soldiers blowing themselves up on buses full of civilians. That's just the way it is.
I will also note that the term "Palestinian" is both pooorly defined and politically charged. It is used today to describe any Arab Muslim who claims a right to any land occupied or controlled by Israel, but (hypocritically) liberals will not allow the term to apply to any descendents of Christian Arabs who were exiled by the Muslims in the 1800's.
Personally, I think the religious stupidity that drives the fight is a true mental illness, all the way around. But you don't see the leaders of the Jews or Christians directly supporting the blowing up of babies in restaurants. Period.
#20 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 08:58 AM
If I understand you, padi k, you are saying that bias is warranted, because some of the Palestinians engage in terrorism.
I think there are some gaps in your logic. Specifically, you claim that ``Hamas does not suffer comparison to the IDF.'' But surely it does. Hamas is the democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people, and its armed wing is an organized fighting force of the people. To be sure, there are competing factions within Palestine for that role, and not all engage in attacks on civilians. All of these, including Hamas, must be compared fairly and factually with the IDF, which represents their opponent in a civil war. There is absolutely no logical reason to trim or frame or distort coverage deliberately to favor Israel.
Surely you understand that only an objective, factual comparison of Hamas and the IDF is worthy of the name journalism.
For example, it is an objective fact that fewer than five Israelis have been killed over many years by rockets sent from Gaza. Yet Israel's attack on Gaza killed more than 1,000 and left 10s of thousands homeless, destroyed electricity serves and turned tens of thousands of homes to rubble.
Objectively, that's a disproportionate response, isn't it? Or would you argue that objectivity does not apply here?
Terrorist attacks can be covered objectively, as can conventional military operations. There should be no need to bend the facts to make
#21 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 06:25 AM
Mr. Beaverman...
Reading your response.. I missed the part about Hamas' blowing up of babies at the Sbarro's.. You can run, Mr. Beaverman, but you can't hide. The reality isn't going anywhere, pal. The only way you can propound your preposterous "equivalency" argument is by removing terms from the left side of the equation. And you seriously try to lecture me on objectivity?
So the rockets were passively "sent from Gaza", but they resulted in "Isreal's attack on Gaza"? Are you on crack? Yeah, this is an "objective" handling of the sequence of events in the conflict.
The reason Hamas' rocket attacks haven't killed more people in Israel than they have is sheer luck combined with the vigilance of the Israelis, and the "Palestinian" (whatever this word is supposed to mean) casualty figures you cite are wildly inflated propaganda claims.
Of course, civilians were indeed killed in the Israeli response to Hamas' attack. Hint: if you are a filthy terrorist organization that uses schools as launchpads and employs human shields while you pepper civilian targets with rockets... You should expect the reaction to your terrorism to result in the deaths of your shields.
Let me say it a third time... Hamas is a filthy terrorist organization that recruits children to blow themselves up in order to kill babies. PERIOD.
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 07:39 AM
And another thing...
Mr. Beaverman wrote: "For example, it is an objective fact that fewer than five Israelis have been killed over many years by rockets sent from Gaza. Yet Israel's attack on Gaza killed more than 1,000 and left 10s of thousands homeless, destroyed electricity serves and turned tens of thousands of homes to rubble.
Objectively, that's a disproportionate response, isn't it?"
padikiller responds: Hell no, it isn't "disproportionate".
Blowing up babies because you're pissed off over a fifty year old land dispute is a "disproportionate" response.
Using whatever force is necessary against "militants" who lob rockets at the homes of civilians in your country (even though the filthy terrorists only manage to kill a "few" of the unarmed civilians) is not a "disproportionate" response. It is a duty imposed by common sense.
If the "Palestinian" (what the hell that means) "militants" decide to launch rockets from schools and hospitals, and if they decide to use children as hiuman shields, then it is the "militants" to blame for any casualties incurred.
And by they way... How about a definition of "Palestinian" for me?
The standard liberal definition seems to be "any Muslim Arab who has any ducumented or undocumented claim to any land in present-day Israel, but not any Christian Arabs or Jews whose ancestors were kicked of their land in present-day Israel by Muslims"
#23 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 10:17 AM
Not all Palestinians are suicide bombers. To justify broad-based attacks on all Palestinians -- like the ones in Gaza -- because of the behavior of a few is nothing more than classic bigotry. The concept of collective punishment not only contradicts the most fundamental basis of morality, it's against international law, whether you like it or not.
Every bigot uses the negative behavior of a minority within a group to define the majority. Your attempt to define the Palestinians and their cause by suicide bombers is not only immoral, it's at odds with the well-established facts of the case.
Your assertion that Palestinian civilians deserve to die because some in their midst are terrorists is no more logical than the assertion that the victims of 9/11 are deserving because their government supported murderers like Saddam Hussein, the Afghan terrorists and the Saudi royal family.
Palestinian has a clear, widely accepted meaning. It refers to the people of Palestine, and in the political context, to the Arab peoples of Palestine. Your assertion that the word Palestinian is meaningless is a clear, case-closing example that you choose not to recognize their legitimacy as a people, let alone as a nation. Coupled with your references to filth, etc. it seems worth asking: Do you even see them as human?
Perhaps because your obvious hostility to Palestinians is all-consuming, you missed my point entirely.
To the extent that journalism is factual, the moral standing of any party in a story is irrelevant. The story presents the facts as they are, period. The fact that you just can't see past your hostility for Hamas and the Palestinians to see that pretty much says it all.
#24 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 10:19 AM
Mr. Beaverman then: "Hamas is the democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people, and its armed wing is an organized fighting force of the people"
Mr. Beaverman now: "Not all Palestinians are suicide bombers. To justify broad-based attacks on all Palestinians -- like the ones in Gaza -- because of the behavior of a few is nothing more than classic bigotry."
padikiller responds: By your own argument the majority of "Palestinians" support Hamas, the baby-killing, suicide bombing terrrorist organization. So any "bigotry" imputed to guilt-by-association is your doing, not mine. Own it, Dude.
As I have said, I don't care who runs Israel, and I'd be happy if the whole place slid into the Mediterranean. Some of the Arabs may have legitimate land claims (but most of them hjust hate Jews). But nothing justifies blowing up babies in a Sbarro's. Period. You really need to accept this little slice of moral reality.
There is a difference between the IDF targeting rocket launchers after the "misbehavior" of even a "few" "militants" and the bloddy aftermath of a policy enacted by the elected (filthy, terrorist) goverment of a populace that supports suicide bomimngs. The two things are NOT morally equivalent. PERIOD.
You know this, even if you won't admit it. Despite your plea for "objectivity" you continue to play word games in defense of the filthy, muderous barbarians... Witness the "passive noun for 'Palestinian' murderous conduct versus the "transitive verb for Israeli self-defense" game - the merely passive "behavior" of a "few" (poor, oppressed, suicide-bombing, rocket launching Hamas terrorists) versus the "broad-based attacks" of the (bloodthirsty, revenge-driven, land-grabbing Israelis). Yeah... That's "objective" analysis you've got there, pal.
Furthermore, you resort (as liberals seem to always do) to out-and-out lying. I never claimed that "Palestinian civilians deserve to die because some in their midst are terrorists"... Indeed, I made it clear that the filthy, murderous Hamas terrorists "in their midst" are to blame for the deaths of these civilians. Let's keep this a debate libel-free, shall we?
Just look at your definition of a "Palestinian"... It is the "people of Palistine" - except for in the "political context" where we are fro some reason supposed to use a racist criteria to distinguish a "true Palestinian" from a fake one. There is no justification for such a definition, aside from one driven by an agenda.
Finally, you object to my use of the word "filth[y]" in describing the murderous Hamas terrorists who launch rockets at residential communities and who recruit children as human shields and suicide bombers.... Why, exactly? If you can think of a better descriptor for such vile, vicious scum, I'll happily employ it.
#25 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 01:20 PM
Yeah Padikiller, it's a "50-year-old land dispute." Keep telling yourself that.
Certainly it isn't a "forcing entire generations of people to live in refugee camps from cradle to grave" dispute.
It's just a squabble about land that some guys with unibrows are getting too emotional about. Just land, not human suffering. Keep telling yourself that, maybe it'll become true.
#26 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 06:14 PM
Yeah.. Israeli soldiers stand at the gates of Palestinian refugee camps, forever imprisoning generation after generation of innocent people. The Arab League (who started the 1948 war) had nothing to do with it.
Now THERE is a reason to blow up babies in a Sbarro's!...
Such idiocy....
#27 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 07:27 PM
Yeah Padikiller, everything was just flowers & peach trees in Palestine until 1948, and then those big bad Arabs had to go and ruin everything. I guess if that's the sort of thing you have to believe in order for your worldview to make sense, more power to you.
What would you do if a group of foreigners were occupying the land your family lived in for generations? Sit quietly in your refugee camp? I doubt it.
And for crying out loud, will you spare me this sob story about kids getting killed in Sbarro? Christy Almighty, you sound like a broken record.
What, is this the first time you've ever heard of children dying in warfare? Are you 10 years old or something?
Kids are blown up every day all around the world. That's what happens when people use guerrilla tactics.
Nobody in the Middle East wakes up in the morning thinking "I want to go kill some babies." They think "I want to terrify and demoralize the state that I'm at war with."
You know, we roasted a lot of Vietnamese babies with napalm during the 60s and 70s.
Our Air Force pilots didn't begin their missions thinking "I want to go burn a bunch of civilians alive." They were trying to win a war, and collateral damage was something they were willing to tolerate to achieve that end.
#28 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 08:30 PM
Hardrada wrote: And for crying out loud, will you spare me this sob story about kids getting killed in Sbarro? Christy Almighty, you sound like a broken record.
padikiller responds: You are piece of useless garbage.
The difference between a "casualty" and "collateral damage" is intent. IIf you intend to hit a legitimate military target, and in the process hurt or kill some civilians, then THAT is "collateral damage". Even Timothy McVeigh was able to distinguish this definition, you filthy piece of crap.
Hamas INTENDED to kill babies and other innocent civilians by targeting a Sbarro's restaurant. These dead babies are NOT "collateral damage". They are the INTENDED TARGETS of filthy terrorists.
In McVeigh's sick mind, he was bombing a government building which made it a legitimate target. Your Hamas terrorists can't even claim this warped realty. They just wanted to kill Jew babies for maximum theatrical effect.
Thanks for showing your true colors.
#29 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 11:18 PM
Voting for Hamas does not make someone a terrorist anymore than voting for Reagan made someone guilty of enabling Afghan terrorists and Saddam Hussein at the apex of his atrocities.
In both international law and common sense, there is a distinction between political and military leaders who are directly responsible for military and geopolitical decisions and their civilian supporters, who are not. I realize this distinction is very inconvenient for Israel, given its long record of killing 100s of times more Palestinians than vice versa, but it is still a well-establish legal principle and a rather obvious product of elementary reason.
Using Padi's flimsy logic, Israeli civilians are fair targets, since the majority vote for a regime that occupies Palestinian lands and murders Palestinian civilians by the hundreds. Own it, indeed, Padi. Israeli civilians are not, of course, fair targets, even if they do vote for governments that perpetrate war crimes, abuse human rights and flout international law. That's international law and common sense.
Likewise, in the debate over what level of force is acceptable in land disputes, Padi K loses by choosing to remove himself from the discussion.
He does this by claiming that ``whatever force is necessary against "militants" who lob rockets at the homes of civilians'' is acceptable. "Whatever"?
It's clear from the context that Padi means that any level of death and destruction is acceptable -- even Israel's wholesale slaughter in Gaza. He gives no reasoning for that conclusion, only the assertion that it is "common sense.'' Unless of course what Padi means by "necessary'' is "the minimum necessary,'' in which cases he still loses since killing more than 1,000 people, mostly civilians, and destroying tens of thousands of homes along with power generation facilities, farms and factories is obviously not a minimal response to attacks that killed fewer than five people over a much longer period of time.
We so often see the claim that Israel's wholesale slaughter of civilians is "not deliberate.'' Indeed it is not deliberate, in the same way the drunk driver absolutely does not intend to kill anyone or the drug dealer does not intend for his customers to get addicted or ruin their lives. If you live in a community where the same drunk driver kills thousands over just a few years, you have every reason to disregard the fact that he doesn't intend to.
Padi also acknowledges that ``Some of the Arabs may have legitimate land claims.''
Even Israel itself acknowledges that the land claims are legitimate. There is no geopolitical, let alone military force, that could or would prevent Israel from annexing the occupied territories. It only refrains from that step because it would end once and for all the charade that Israel is a democracy. The day Israel annexed the West Bank and Gaza, Jews would either become a minority or in dire threat of it. And because Israel only recognizes the legitimacy of its own religion, it cannot allow a Muslim majority and, therefore, it will not annex the occupied territories.
So where does this leave the Palestinians? They know Israel will not annex the territories and allow democracy, nor will Israel recognize the full legitimacy, within Israel, of any religion other than Judaism. Why then, won't Israel simply let the majority rule in the West Bank and Gaza?
For Palestinians, the answer is as obvious as it is infuriating and painful. Israel does indeed intend to annex the West Bank, eventually. But it will only do so after the territory has a Jewish majority. And it can only achieve that through a "Final Solution" of exterminating Palestinians -- a feat it can only achieve with U.S. welfare checks and the moral and diplomatic cover the U.S. provides in the international community.
The thing about people like Padi is that the truly can't see past a priori reasoning. They are sincer
#30 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 08:04 AM
You sick people honestly believe that suicide bombing is justified.
Israel has a "Final Solution" of "exterminating Palestinians"? You honestly believe this silly crap?
FYI... Arabs make up 20% of the population of Israel and have since 1948. So much for your attempt to equate Israel with the Nazis.
The largest number of the people you define as "Palestinians" are descendants of Arabs who left their homes to sign up with foreign armies to fight Israel after the Arab League declared war in 1948. They were expecting to return after the Arab League won the war. It just didn't work out for them.
Let's repeat this little bit of history... The original "Palestinians" (using your stilted definition- left Israel on their own to sign up with foreign armies to go to battle after the Arab League started the war...
Third time... The ARAB LEAGUE STARTED THE WAR
The Arabs that stayed (Muslim, Christian, Druze or Jewish) in Israel are still there as citizens. Of course, we don't include these people in your liberal definition of "Palestinian".
Israel has compensation boards and special laws to deal with title conflicts created by the British Mandate.
Should the Israeli government control the country? Maybe, maybe not. But they do. Have the Israelis been 100 percent fair in dealing with Arab land claims? Hard core Israelis would argue that the process is too fair and that the Arabs should be exiled. Hard core "Palestinians" (of your definition) would argue that Israel should be wiped off the map.
But a land claim does NOT JUSTIFY SUICIDE BOMBING.
#31 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 09:27 AM
More Beaverman prevarication: It's clear from the context that Padi means that any level of death and destruction is acceptable -- even Israel's wholesale slaughter in Gaza.
padikiller responds: For the sake of Sweet Jeebus, man, how many damned times to I have to make it clear that the civilians killed on either side are NOT FAIR TARGETS!
The filthy, murderous terrorists who turn these civilians into targets by lobbing rockets at them, by blowing themselves up in order to kill them and their babies and by employing them as human shields in battle are to blame for their tragic deaths.
I really don't care who owns the dirt in the Middle East. However, my opinion is that Israel has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with its enemies. If I were running the show there I would have permanently annexed every square inch of territory ceded in every war declared by others, and I would have kicked out every single sympathizer. Now that there is a "Palestinian Authority", if I were running the show, I would have the IDF ripping apart the rocket brigades from inside PA-controlled territory, and I would let the PA leadership know that I would take down their government and seize their personal graft-inflated, stolen-foreign-aid slush money unless the "misbehavior" of the "few" stopped.
#32 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 09:45 AM
Well, Padi, you do make a rock-solid argument against suicide bombing. If only someone were around to argue in it's favor. It's telling that, rather than deal with the issues of borders, human rights and international law, you keep reiterating how opposed you are to suicide bombing and how much you'd enjoy eliminating more Palestinians, were you in a position to do so.
Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. By definition and certainly in practice, Muslims are second-class citizens. Some Arabs have made peace with that and have lived in Israel, much as many Jews choose to accept second-class citizenship in Muslim countries.
It's telling that Padikiller can't even keep his story straight in a single post. First, he asserts that most Palestinians were soldiers who "left" to fight in the war. Later he changes that description to cover all Palestinians. It's bogus propaganda anyway. The Palestinians were fighting a war in their homeland. They were defending their homes. Why on earth would "leaving" be part of a military strategy to achieve that? Rather, the vast majority fled the fighting. That's why we call them refugees. The fighters stayed and fought, while, indeed, some Arab leaders encouraged Palestinian civilians -- not fighters -- to evacuate to safety, pending a return after the victory.
Padi claims the Arab league started the war. That's a misleading oversimplification. Jews and Palestinians had been fighting since well before the British government divided the territory based on its own convenience and in no small part on a sense of tragedy about the Holocaust. None of this had anything to do with protecting Palestinians' property and human rights.
C'mon Padi. Even you can see that "fighters" who "leave" their homes are deserters, not soldiers. Fighters, by definition, stayed and fought. Those who fled were civilians, ie they didn't fight, they fled.
And why were they fighting in the first place? They were fighting because their land was being taken by the Israeli government, which defined itself as a Jewish state, to the exclusion of non-Jews, except those willing to accept second-class citizenship and the supremacy of ancient Jewish claims to be the rightful owners of all land in the area.
Wouldn't you too have objected to that deal, Padi? Or would you have simply "sucked it up" and let the government take your land and tell you you were entitled to something less than full citizenship?
Indeed Israel does not have a plan to exterminate Palestinians any more than a drug dealer has a plan to addict his customers or a factory that dumps mercury in the river has a plan to exterminate fish. Yet Palestinians are being exterminated and their land is being expropriated inch by inch. How convenient.
If you can pause from fantasizing about being murderer-in-chief of Israel, Padi, perhaps you can find the time to explain to me just what Israel's plan is for the West Bank.
If Israel plans to annex the occupied territories, will it allow the Arab majority to vote? If it plans to give the Palestinians back their land, why is it building more settlements day after day, year after year?
I know I'm asking the impossible here, but put yourself in a Palestinian's shoes. Your land was taken and now your told that you MIGHT get it back if you agree to disarm AND recognize the thief's right to own your land. But of course the thief isn't committing to giving you your land back, he's just saying he'll talk about it, AFTER you disarm and admit the land really doesn't belong to you.
It's easy for me to empathize with the majority of Israelis. That's because they too know the occupation has destroyed the character of their country. They know it is unsustainable, immoral and dangerous. They know that the government supports the West Bank colonies only because it is weak and open to manipulation by military power and a unique geopolitical circumstance
#33 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 10:57 AM
and Padi should decide, a civilians acceptable targets or not. He screams in caps that civilians aren't fair targets, but then immediately changes his tune to say it's OK for Israel to kill civilians because Israel's enemies use civilians as "human shields."
Which is it, Padi? Is it OK to civilians, or not? Or does it depend on the situation? You seem a little confused on that key point.
#34 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 11:07 AM
Another Beaverman lie:
It is NOT OK to kill civilians. Israel isn't killing the civilians - Hamas is. If the IDF were targeting civilians, it would be filthy murder. But they aren't. The IDF is defending the unarmed civilians who are being attacked by filthy, murderous terrorists. The IDF attacks only military targets.
It is HAMAS who is killing Palestinian civilians by employing them as human shields. If the "few" "misbehaving" Hamas "millitants" did not launch operations from residential neighborhoods, schools or hosptitals, civilians would be alive.
Why can't you simply absorb this reality?
This filthy, vile terrorists snatch children off the streets to protect themselves while they launch rockets at unarmed civilians, and you want to blame Israel for the consequences of defending its people from the terror attacks.
This is just ridiculous nonsense.
#35 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 12:04 PM
Beaverman wrote: put yourself in a Palestinian's shoes. Your land was taken and now your told that you MIGHT get it back if you agree to disarm AND recognize the thief's right to own your land. But of course the thief isn't committing to giving you your land back, he's just saying he'll talk about it, AFTER you disarm and admit the land really doesn't belong to you.
padikiller: The "thief"?... More of that patented Beaverman "objectivity".
However, there are indeed a ton of valid land claims and indeed if I were in the shoes of the people who want their land back, I'd be pissed off too. I would probably go to war. But I wouldn't kill babies in a Sbarro's.
Of course, the land claims are nothing but a dodge- the real issue is religous stupidity and hatred.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas DIRECTLY ran suicide bombing missions and other terror operations against civilians because it wanted to kill Jews.
As far as land claims go, lest we forget.. There are also a ton of Christian Arabs whose ancestors were displaced without compensation from the ancestors of the people you define to be "Palestinians"- Do these people have valid claims? Where do you draw the line?
#36 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 12:18 PM
``It is HAMAS who is killing Palestinian civilians by employing them as human shields.''
The hole in Padi's logic is obvious. Simply using someone as a shield does not result in their death. Someone else is killing the shields and in this case that someone is the IDF. Why doesn't even this level of elementary logic appeal to Padi? Has he been reading the NY Times for too long? What kind of bubble does he live in such that he sees people who are fleeing an attack as the ones killing the people killed by the attacker?
Perhaps what Padi actually means is that Israel indeed kills civilians, but is justified in doing so, ie it is OK to kill civilians under some circumstances. And, in this particular case, that would mean Padi's view is that it's OK to kill thousands of civilians in response to the killings of less than five of your own civilians.
In Gaza, Israel destroyed the only cement factory. It claimed parts of the factory were being used to shelter Hamas fighters, and while Israel hasn't been able to provide evidence of their claim, let's assume for the purposes of demonstration that it is true.
Israel did not just attack the factory with missiles, nor surround it with ground forces to force out any militants. It bombed the facility to permanently disable its structural integrity. There were no surviving civilians or militants in the factory. Still, Israel delivered dynamite to the site and proceeded to reduce every structure, every wall and every pillar in the the factory to rubble. It then had bulldozers waiting to level the entire area until not even one brick was left of it.
I would expect Padi to respond to this document incident either by yet another explosion of epithets about Hamas or by saying that Israel has a right to destroy civilian infrastructure in order to prevent future attacks. There is at least a sliver of logic to that, but it opens the door to justifying virtually any attack on any target. Hamas uses exactly that logic to justify terrorism. It is preventing future attacks by hitting civilian infrastructure. Israel can't attack Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and Gaza if it is forced to defend its own civilians in its own cities. (I don't buy this logic. My view is that its not OK to kill civilians, period. This makes it very tough to fight terrorists and guerrillas, but nobody said respecting international law and human rights is always expeditious.)
Remember, Israel's intelligence service helped establish Hamas, applying the "any means necessary'' logic back when the goal was to undermine the political legitimacy of the PLO. The blowback has been especially nasty on that, hasn't it?
Remember also that the Hamas Israel's intelligence helped establish in the occupied territories was primarily a social services organization running hospitals, schools and other facilities. Israel's pervasive attacks on the PLO's political legitimacy and human supporters worked, leaving Hamas as a more credible organization. Then Israel turned on Hamas, assassinating the softest targets, which happened to be the organization's civilian leadership, not its military cadres.
No one is debating the legitimacy of terrorism. Rather, our debate is over the limits of a violent response to terrorism. Padi seems to be arguing that there are no limits: killing civilians is OK if your enemy has engaged in terrorism. We may be able to get somewhere if Padi will at least acknowledge what his position actually is and stop pretending that our debate is over terrorism itself and that I defend the legitimacy of terrorism.
#37 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 08:40 PM
Beaverman wrote: Simply using someone as a shield does not result in their death
padikiller responds: The hell it doesn't! Tell that to the dead civilians Hamas used as shields.
You know what I'm not reading in your eight paragraph blither, Beaverman? I'm not reading the part where you admit that using children as human shields is a vile, despicable act of filthy inhuman terrorism that cannot be tolerated in any civilized society. Once you get to this point, we can move on. Are you there yet?
By your sick and twisted reasoning, any sufficiently vicious bastard can simply snatch a child off the street and use the child to kill as many people as he wants. A Hamas thug can stand in a school yard and launch rockets at unarmed civilians with impunity, as long as he makes sure he puts enough children in harm's way to make himself immune from arrest or attack. This outcome is just sheer stupidity.
How is a civilized nation supposed to deal with aggressive terrorists who use human shields? Just let them get away with murder? Are you seriously sick enough in the head to really believe this?
The IDF does not target civilians. The videos of the IDF operations are online. If civilian casualties occur (and they do, regrettably) it is because Hamas used the civilians as body armor. To blame anyone but Hamas for these casualties is not just nonsensical, it is immoral.
Your moral compass needs a major realignment.
#38 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 11:42 PM
I repeat: No one is debating the illegitimacy or legitimacy of terrorism. It's clear that you're smart enough to understand what those words mean, so I have to assume you've ignored them out of a lack of intellectual integrity and debating skill, rather than because of poor reading comprehension. Maybe you can explain which part of that you don't understand or why you insist on arguing with yourself from within such a transparent bubble of denial.
No one is saying or has ever said Israel has no right to attack terrorists. Nor is anyone suggesting targeting civilians is acceptable, nor using civilians as human shields when carrying out attacks. You are arguing against a phantom on those points, not against me or any other person who has commented here.
Someone in this debate has suggested there is no right to self-defense. But that person is you, Padi. Your position implies that you believe Palestinian civilians have no right to defend themselves against the IDF. When the IDF makes it clear that it will attack civilians when expedient to do so in pursuit of terrorists or even to prevent terrorism in advance, civilians not only have a right to fight back, but have no other choice. In Gaza, Israel didn't even bother to offer surrender as an option. Instead, it dropped leaflets saying "leave or die.'' It also employed IDF personnel to call civilians on the phone and order them to leave or die. But anyone who can read a map can see that Palestinians in Gaza have nowhere to go and many have no realistic means to flee, especially the handicapped and infirm.
If Israel merely intended to attack active rocket positions in Gaza, why didn't the leaflets and phone callers say: If rocket launchers come to your house or building, leave the building immediately, because it will be targeted. Israel did not do that for an obvious reason, it intended to reduce all of Gaza to rubble to extract collective punishment and to terrorize Palestinians as a way to deter them from taking up arms in self-defense or to try to remove Israel from Palestinian land.
Israel does not target civilians and to do so would clearly run counter to its strategic interests. Israel does, however, have a clear strategic interest in killing civilians and it has proven very efficient at doing that, killing Palestinians at a rate many 10s of times greater than that of Palestinians killing Israeli civilians.
Again, when a drunk driver crashes and kills a baby, we do not call it murder, because he didn't target the baby. He didn't intend to kill anyone, let alone the baby. But what if the drunk driver is in a stolen car that he refuses to admit doesn't belong to him and kills dozens of men, women and children week after month after year, each time without deliberately crashing his vehicle, all while claiming the fact that he doesn't intend to kill exonerates him? At what point can we call him a murderer? After five deaths? 10? 100?
Street gang members in America understandably face murder charges when stray bullets kill passersby they never targeted or intended to harm in any way. If the gang member is acting in self-defense, that's no excuse. He fired his gun and that gun killed passersby, he's up on murder charges. But suppose there's a gang member who, over the years, has killed hundreds of passersby, even though he's never targetted them. Turns out, he's living in the other gang members' house, and claims it as his own, so he's often targeted by the other "filthy" street thugs, who also go after his family. But they just can't kill him, because he sprays bullets everywhere anytime they get near. When he's caught by the authorities, you better believe he's tried and convicted of murder.
There must be some number and thus there must be some point at which Israel's policy of not deliberately targeting civilians no longer carries any moral weight. Especially when Israel lacks legitimacy within the
#39 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 01:22 AM
Beaverman wrote: Especially when Israel lacks legitimacy within the occupied territories, and thus has no claim to a monopoly on violence.
padikiller notes: And THERE we have it.... Finally!...
After a zillion posts lecturing me on "objectivity" and "facts", we finally get to the bottom of things.
Your position is guided by your political conviction.. Unlike me, you DO have a horse in the race. Why didn't you just say so in the beginning? There is no point attempting a rational debate when an opponent has an entrenched ideology.
#40 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 07:57 AM
Israel's lack of legitimacy in the occupied territories is a fact, not an opinion, under international law. Israel itself does not have a legal position on the legitimacy of its colonies, which is one reason the problem is especially obstinate. Israel simply doesn't want to live up to the commitments formalizing its occupation would require and because it has acts with impunity on the international stage, it does not consider legitimacy worth the bother.
I'm not sure what you mean by claiming you "don't have a horse in this race,'' Padi. You made clear that, were you King of Israel, you'd be killing a lot more Palestinians. I'm baffled as to why you'd expect anyone to take your claim of neutrality seriously. I said your logic bubble is transparent, but apparently, it's an all-enveloping one-way mirror. All the world can see in, but you can't see out.
Nor is it clear why you think Israel's legitimacy in the West Bank is a question of ideology. Liberals, conservatives, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, communists and capitalists alike all recognize that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel.
#41 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 09:32 AM
More Beaverman "objectivity": Israel's lack of legitimacy in the occupied territories is a fact, not an opinion..
padikiller: Now the true colors are showing...
IUnlike you, i truly don't care who runs the show there. If the "Palestinian" people rise up in arms and take over the Israeli dirt, I don't give a crap. I'm just noting that killing babies with suicide bombs or by using them as human shields is a filthy act of barbarious terrorism. PERIOD.
However, Israel has shown remarkable restraint in the face of vile terrorism. The Israelis only took the West Bank and the Gaza Strip because the Arabs declared war on them. And then they immediately offered to give back the territory in exchange for peace - an offer the Arabs flatly rejected. I don't see how any government could have been more reasonable that Israel was.
I certainly wouldn't have been this reasonable if I were running Israel (or any country). If I took territory from enemies (any enemies) who declared war on me, I would annex the ceded land permanently or require extraordinary reparitions as a condition of its return.
As you are fond of saying, Beaverman.. Put yourself in the Israeli shoes. You declared your independence and been recognized by the UN, and the whole Arab world goes to war against you. You beat them soundly and go on about your business. Twenty years later, Egypt and Jordon declare war again (Syria too). You soundly defeat them, snatch the land they ceded in battle and offer to immediately return it in exchange for peace. What else is Israel suppoded to do?
#42 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 10:21 AM
P-killer: your emotional state has no bearing on the facts though it is revealing that you believe it does. It doesn't matter whether you take sides or not. The only relevance of your claim not to "care,'' is that it demonstrates your lack of intellectual integrity. You argue in favor of Palestinians' unconditional surrender and against Israeli compromise and compliance with international law at every step, then expect to gain some kind of credibility as objective by declaring a lack of concern about whether Israel achieves its goal of eliminating the Palestinians as a people.
You assert: ``The Israelis only took the West Bank and the Gaza Strip because the Arabs declared war on them.''
But that's obviously not true. Israel considers the West Bank and Gaza its own territory, or "Greater Israel.'' Are you ignorant of that, or in denial? The incontrovertible proof of that is that Israel has continuously colonized the areas, building permanent Jewish-only enclaves and paying immigrants from Russia and America a subsidy to live there. If Israel occupied the West Bank as a security measure after fighting a war with its neighbors, the very last thing it would do is place Jewish-only civilian colonial enclaves throughout the territory, creating vulnerable targets.
Likewise with your claim that Israel did ``snatch the land they ceded in battle and offer to immediately return it in exchange for peace. What else is Israel supposed to do?''
Israel has never offered to return all its occupied territory. Both in theory in negotiations and in practice on the ground, Israel has never offered to simply return all land it occupies. Rather, Israel has offered highly conditional piecemeal returns, always at the expense of commitments to recognize the legitimacy of its occupation of the other parts.
Thus, Israel returned the barren sands of the Sinai desert, but remained in occupation of the Gaza strip and its coastal resort areas and Jewish-only enclaves. Israel did eventually withdraw from Gaza, but did so only partially, maintaining full military control of borders, airspace and while unilaterally imposing a range of non-negotiable conditions on the citizens there and, all the while, accelerating construction of Jewish-only colonies in the West Bank.
What would I do if I were Israel? The starting point would be to recognize Palestine's right to exist and, thereby, immediately halt construction of Jewish-only colonies in the occupied territory and begin a staged program of returning the existing colonies to Palestinian control. Secondly, I would immediately declare the intention to obey international law and to adhere to previous commitments under the Oslo Accords, the Road Map and United Nations resolution 242 and all others. Thirdly, I would welcome the UNs standing offer to provide international peacekeepers to monitor a ceasefire, starting in Jerusalem, where I would support Palestinians' desire to build their capital city. On the question of refugees, I would immediately underscore support for the right of all Palestinians to return to their ancestral lands and to any town, village or structure they owned before 1948. The terms for this would be painful for both the Palestinians and Israel, since there is no way two people can occupy the same house, the same piece of land. Given the long-standing inability of Palestinians and Israelis to peaceably agree on terms for this, I would leave it to the UN Security Council to produce a plan that would recognize both Israeli Jews ancestral claims to a homeland in the region and Palestinians'.
None of this would be subject to revocation via terrorism. All of these moves are aimed at bringing Israel back into compliance with international law and the community of civilized nations. They are not bargaining tokens and so cannot be revoked based on the behavior of terrorists.
Once these measures are implemented, however, Israel
#43 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 07:48 PM
Beaverman beats his dead horse: You argue in favor of Palestinians' unconditional surrender...
padikiller: The hell I do. If the "Palestinians" (using your stilted definition) want to declare war, declare their own independence, fight like hell to get "their" dirt back... More power to them, I say.
Just don't blow up babies at the Sbarro's or lob rockets at residential neighborhoods. And don't use children as body armor.
Why can't you just deal with this, Dude?
#44 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 08:46 PM
Beaverman wrote: What would I do if I were Israel? The starting point would be to recognize Palestine's right to exist and, thereby, immediately halt construction of Jewish-only colonies in the occupied territory and begin a staged program of returning the existing colonies to Palestinian control.
padikiller wonders: What does Israel get out of this deal? Why would Israel give control of the region to the very people who want to wipe Israel off the map? What incentive is there to do this from Israel's point of view?
Nobody wants the Oslo Accords these days. Israelis now are something like 5-to-1 against them, and Hamas won't even acknowledge Israel's right to exist. How would you sell this to the Israeli people if you were running the show and assuming that Hamas was willing to accept the Oslo terms?
Why would Israel want a UN peacekeeping mission when it does a pretty good job of keeping the peace on its own? What does Israel get out of a UN peacekeeping force?
Aside from the fact that your plan doesn't seem to do anything for Israel, it is also just a pipe dream. Arabs and Jews have been fighting for three thousand years and they're not going to stop because the UN says to. There is no way you are going to be able to divide the dirt that will not exacerbate the problem.
#45 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 09:19 PM
For the umpteenth time, Padi, I'm as opposed to terrorism as you are. Where we differ is over what the effective, legitimate and moral range of responses are are to terrorism.
You seem to be arguing that the existence of terrorist attacks against Israel gives the country a moral blank check to do "anything necessary'' to defeat terrorists, even when that means killing 10s or even 100s of times more civilians than the terrorists ever have.
We agree on one thing, though: adhering to international law is not in the Israeli government's interest. This is one of the clearest measures of its lack of legitimacy. It has created a government and geopolitical structure that is inimical to international law and has no self-interest in participating in an international solution to the conflict.
But remember, when I say this, I am talking about the Israeli government, not the Israeli people. (The same dichotomy exists with Hamas. It is not in Hamas interests to sincerely negotiate with Israel, since its legitimacy is based very narrowly on Israel's record of atrocities and unwillingness to obey international law or participate in reasonable negotiations.)
For the Israeli people, the unwillingness to obey international law is disastrous. The occupation is unsustainable, long-term and the longer Israel waits to comply with international law on that point, the worse it will be for the colonists who are investing their lives in building what their government and their religion has led them to believe is "Greater Israel."
#46 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 10:01 PM
Moreover, Hamas' apparent inability to sincerely negotiate and its involvement with terrorist tactics will continue to be disastrous for the Palestinian people, even if the party has played a role in deterring Israeli aggression short-term.
The self-interests of the parties involved are mostly narrow and self-defeating and not worthy guideposts for proposed solutions or policy in general.
#47 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 10:20 PM
There is no such thing (in practical terms) as "international law". "Legitimacy" is rooted in power and in the passage of time.
The American colonies, in declaring their independence, were in clear violation of the "international law" of their times. The Tories high-tailed it when their side lost- just as your "Palestinians" high-tailed it out of the West Bank in 1948. To the victor go the spoils.
I'm not passing judgment on the people you call "Palestinians" with regard to their right to assert any claims or grievances they may have. Nor am I passing judgment on the Israelis for similar assertions.
However, you do not see Israelis blowing up Arab babies at the Sbarro's at the behest of the Israeli leadership. You do not see IDF soldiers snatching children off the streets to be used as human shields. These tactics are simply evil.
What will it take to get you to absorb the reality here?
#48 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 15 Feb 2010 at 01:17 AM
No one has denied the record of Palestinian terrorism, let alone condoned it. No one? Got that? Again, not me, not anyone in this conversation has ever uttered a word supporting or condoning terror. Yet you keep claiming over and over and over that I'm somehow not "absorbing the reality."
How many times can I repeat until you would admit this very simple reality: I am as opposed to targeting civilians as you are.
The difference in our views is, rather, that you have a much higher tolerance for killing civilians, as long as it is undertaken by a side you approve of.
Your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty is pretty obvious here, but in your haste, perhaps, you can't help but let some unwitting honesty slip out. LIke your belief that international law doesn't exist and that "To the victor goes the spoils'' is a meaningful framework for geopolitics.
If you have no problem with "to the victor goes the spoils,'' then you'll have no reason to oppose, say, a missile attack on Israel from Iran or Saudi Arabia or Syria that wipes out Tel Aviv, as long as that missile is targetted at government buildings, right?
#49 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Mon 15 Feb 2010 at 01:33 AM
Beaverman bangs the same dull drum: The difference in our views is, rather, that you have a much higher tolerance for killing civilians
padikiller shoots down the nonsense: No... I have no tolerance for the killing of civilians.
As for the civilian deaths among the people you define to be "Palestinians", I merely assign culpability where it is due - namely to the filthy Hamas terrorists who use children as human shields and who conduct terror operations (sorr,y, I meant "misbehave") from residential neighborhoods, schools and hospitals. Certainly these civilian deaths should NOT be tolerated - the murderous, inhuman terrorists responsible for their deaths should be put down like rabid dogs.
You dodge this little truism, no doubt because you realize that your stated position on this issue is twisted. Using your logic, any sufficiently vicious bastard could kill as many people as he wanted as long as he kept enough children as body armor. This is just an absurd position. And you know it.
#50 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 15 Feb 2010 at 08:50 AM
``As for the civilian deaths among the people you define to be "Palestinians", I merely assign culpability where it is due - namely to the filthy Hamas terrorists.''
You'll have to explain how Hamas is responsible for deaths cause by missiles, bombs and machine guns fired by IDF members. If you're so dishonest that you can't even make yourself aware of the cause and effect between an IDF member firing a bullet and that bullet killing an innocent civilian, there is indeed no hope of getting you to acknowledge neither the fundamental facts nor logic that refute your position on this conflict.
Again, if a gang member who's being hunted down by a rival gang sprays bullets into a crowd, killing bystanders, is he not murdering those bystanders? Or would you blame the rival gang member for hunting him?
``Using your logic, any sufficiently vicious bastard could kill as many people as he wanted as long as he kept enough children as body armor.''
So how, exactly, would this work. How would this person go about killing people while using children as body armor? I'm having trouble matching this to anything that has happened or is likely to happen. Is this something you saw in a cartoon? A dream? When has Hamas used children as "body armor"?
Perhaps you are merely exaggerating the terrorist tactic of firing missiles, then retreating to civilian areas or firing missiles from civilian areas. This is hardly the same as using children as body armor, but you're disregard for the facts has a long record in this discussion.
As you probably know, but are too dishonest to acknowledge, Israel has literally used Palestinians as body armor, tying Palestinian prisoners to the front of military vehicles leading convoys into the occupied territories on assassination missions.
#51 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Mon 15 Feb 2010 at 09:45 AM
Beaverman's on the run: "[I]f a gang member who's being hunted down by a rival gang sprays bullets into a crowd, killing bystanders, is he not murdering those bystanders?
padikiller keeps it real: Yeah.. If an IDF soldier "sprayed bullets" into a crowd, you would have a point.
But that's not what's happening. The people being "hunted down" by the filthy murderous Hamas terrorists are unarmed babies at the Sbarro's. The IDF is directing force at the terrorists, not at the crowd.
It is the inhuman, filthy vile terrorists who are snatching children off the streets to use them as shields...
Witness the reality, Beaverman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J08GqXMr3YE
#52 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 15 Feb 2010 at 11:44 AM
And there's no point in denying the video with convoluted apologetic speculation...
Hamas freely admits and brags about its use of human shields...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y
#53 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 15 Feb 2010 at 12:18 PM
Excellent point, P-killer. You say the IDF targets its bullets, so there should be no accidental deaths. Since we know that in Gaza, more than 1,000 civilians, including many women and children, were killed, we can assume, by your own logic P-Killer, than these innocents were targeted.
Of course the reality is that you're lying again, P-killer, and you know it. Israel does spray bullets into crowds. And not just bullets, but missiles and cluster bombs as well. That's how it kills civilians at a rate 10 to 100 times those killed by Hamas.
#54 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Mon 15 Feb 2010 at 11:21 PM
and neither of those videos show anyone using civilians as human shields. One is of a man making a speech in which he uses the term human shield metaphorically. He also says "we desire death, like you desire life." Obviously, there's no need for a shield of any kind if you desire death. clearly the speech was rhetorical in the extreme and no evidence of anything other than the insane kind of rhetoric some palestinian leaders use.
The other video simply shows armed men snatching a child out of the street. he is far more likely to be preventing the child from exposing himself to Israeli sniper fire. While it is certainly theoretically possible that he was snatching the child for use as a human shield, the video does not show that in any way. It merely shows someone snatching a child.
I can see now why you come to believe as you do. You actually have very low standards for evidence. You'll believe anything, if it points toward what you already believe anyway...
#55 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Mon 15 Feb 2010 at 11:33 PM
"For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children," Hammad is quoted as saying. "This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life,'" he said.
It's self-explanatory, Beaverman...
#56 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 15 Feb 2010 at 11:43 PM
No p-killer, it is not self-explantory, it is metaphorical and obviously so. Why would someone who desires death use a shield. It's a simple question and I'm sure you're intelligent enough to field it. Trouble is, you're not honest enough to.
If Israel's intelligence is complete enough to accurately target missiles at terrorists only, it is only logical that its intelligence is also good enough to allow Israel to WAIT until those terrorists have moved away from civilians.
Your formula in which Hamas is responsible for civilians killed by Israeli bombs only makes sense if Israel has no choice but to drop those bombs. But we both know Israel does have a choice. It has the intelligence and the vast military offensive and defensive infrastructure to maintain security against the extremely low-tech, low-intensity threat posed by Hamas.
Your moral math doesn't add up, p-killer, because you fail to include all the relevant data. While it is certainly true that Israel's individual attacks are morally superior to suicide bombings of civilian targets, it is also true that Israel's attacks are many times more numerous and hundreds of times more lethal.
When we include all the data, it is easy to see that Israel's response is disproportionately viscious and lethal. When we combine that with the fact that Israel occupies Palestinian land in defiance of international law, while the Palestinians occupy no Israeli land, we can see that it is ludicrous to award Israel carte blanche as a morally superior actor in this conflict.
Without doubt, there has to be a limit to how many civilians Israel can kill, even as it claims self-defense while it maintains an illegal occupation.
Hamas has no justification to target civilians, though it does have a right
#57 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Tue 16 Feb 2010 at 05:42 AM
the last sentence should be: Hamas has no justification target civilians, but this has no bearing on ordinary Palestinians' right to self defense and their right to be free of Israeli attacks, even when Hamas terrorists are operating in their vicinity.
#58 Posted by H. Clement Beaverman, CJR on Tue 16 Feb 2010 at 05:48 AM
I'm sure if a Palestinian was a reporter he/she would be classed as bias. Seems odd that a journo whose son is fighting for one side is allowed to be known as an impartial judge of events. Even so, the NYT is blatantly biased towards Israel so Bronner's job as reporter isn't really a shock...is it? Does it ever occur that Israel doesn't actually target civilians because they don't care either way - resitance fighters or civilians, they all deserve to be dead in Israel's mind. Israel's often been shown to be lying and only when independent reports prove this to be the case do they admit it-Qana twice.
#59 Posted by Kryten, CJR on Tue 16 Feb 2010 at 06:31 AM
I commend padikiller for keeping up his argumentation in the face of all reason. Fact is, the IDF compels young Israelis to murder children. The IDF doesn't need Sbarros to murder innocent people. At checkpoints in the West Bank, in Gazan schools and homes the whole world can watch young Israeli soldiers debasing and assaulting children, pregnant woman--the more defenseless the better. By MR padikiller's definition the Israeli Defense Force is a dirty terrorist organization. But reason aside, the New York Times editors should not impugn their reporters because of their relatives. MR Bronner has consistently reported from the Israeli perspective and that will not be changed by his relative's military service. The editorial misjudgment arose when MR Bronner was assigned to Jerusalem. It is just now more apparent.
#60 Posted by Eileen Wheeler Sheehan, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 04:48 PM