Israel Forum Watch; 24-Hour Vilification, Apologetics and Hate from a Fanatically Pro-Israel Viewpoint

Friday, June 23, 2006

Deserving Victims

We’ve been treated to one of the irregular missives masquerading as news from NewsGuy. This time the subject is Palestinian Qassam rockets hitting (occasionally) the southern Israeli town of Sderot.

Israelis at risk of death or injury from Qassam rocket attacks have a just cause for fear. So our Israel Forum mob are up in arms over the comments of Israeli veteran politician Shimon Peres. He has called the protests by residents of Sderot, “hysterics”. Newsguy is flabbergasted at such insensitivity,

while Palestinian rockets continue to rain down, killing children, destroying houses, schools and synagogues with no end in sight.”.

While I agree with the sentiment, the contrast with just a week earlier could not be more stark. Remember the Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli artillery? This is how our fanatical friends responded to that,

looking at it cold bloodedly, now there are a few less homocide bombers and jihadist

To call it a disaster is absolutely improper. This is what happens in war

Hhmmmm, what has happened here?

Now before anyone launches into accusations of 'moral equivalence' or other such nonsense, I’m not arguing that the incidents are of a similar gravity. Clearly, IDF attacks on Palestinians have been far more devastating in terms of death and destruction. The Qassam attacks have killed a total of 3 Israeli’s and damaged scores of buildings (mostly minor). By contrast, IDF 'targeted killings', that’s extra-judicial executions for us ordinary folk, have killed hundreds of innocent bystanders, nevermind the targets of the attacks, who are simply dismissed as 'wanted men' or 'terrorists'.

And that is the key. For the Forum crazies, Jewish Israelis are the only worthy victims, whose blood we should shed a tear over, whose fear we should empathize with. Dead Palestinians? Yes, please.

Our writers detachment from reality is complete, judging by this bizarre statement,

Maybe the Palestinians also need to get used to have their population centers being targeted by missiles around the clock in an effort to stop their terrorists from firing at Israeli towns”.

Yes, if only those lucky Palestinians, living in serenity and luxury, could come to understand the fear and uncertainty of the poor residents of Sderot, maybe then there might be peace.

But, Peres does have a point. After all, this is the reality of modern Zionism. It’s citizens are the canon fodder of the ‘Greater Israel’ vision, encouraged to move out into the illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, amongst a population furious at the confiscation of their land, the destruction of their livelihoods and their imprisonment. So, naturally they strike back at their tormenters. Peres just reminds them of this salient fact, just as Moshe Dayan did years ago,

We are doomed to live in a constant state of war with the Arabs……If we are to proceed with our work against the wishes of the Arabs we shall have to expect such sacrifices”.

That is, while Zionisms ideology of subjugating Palestinians as a pre-condition for redeeming the land for Jews continues, they will continue to resist.

Sunday, June 11, 2006

Vilification, Apologetics and Hate

You couldn't ask for a better demonstration of the masthead really; 24 Hour Vilification, Apologetics and Hate.

Ironic that it all pops up in a thread on the deaths of innocent Palestinians, believed to be the result of IDF shelling, that is meant to be an Israel Forum effort to show how reasonable they are.

Vilification; this helps to portray others as less than human or less worthy humans and hence violence against them is more acceptable.

looking at it cold bloodedly, now there are a few less homocide[sic] bombers and jihadist”.

Yep, they weren’t women and children that died, just potential “bombers”.

Apologetics; Denying responsibility is all the rage. Israel is forced to act as it does by others, hence they are responsible for the consequences of Israeli actions.

if terrorists were not shooting off Kassams (whatever) the IDF would not be retaliating, and no ones picnic would have been disturbed

it is the fault of the terrorists and the society that gives rise to the terrorists and holds them in high regard

let's not forget if there wouldn't be Arab terror there would be no need for our navy to patrol

Hate; self-explanatory.

Islam is a colonialist, imperialist philosophy of hatred, violence and murder

muslim flith

Innocent? These Arab occupiers and terrorist supporters are anything but innocent.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Proud of the IDF

Not today apparantly.

An Israeli shell landed on a Gaza beach killing 7 Palestinians.

This is a complete and utter disaster. I am sure it wasn't intentional, but 12 innocent people killed is not something to dismiss.

I agree

Our Israel Forum fiends know how important appearances are. Hence the cursory lamentations.

But it isn’t too long before their true feelings begin to bubble to the surface.

Is is sad, but you know if terrorists were not shooting off Kassams (whatever) the IDF would not be retaliating, and no ones picnic would have been disturbed. OR, looking at it cold bloodedly, now there are a few less homocide bombers and jihadist. The Palistinians did vote Hamas into power, what the hell did they think was going to happen.?

Not only does the façade dissolve quite quickly, but it’s only a hop skip and a jump to,
I'm sorry for the loss of life of innocent people, but it is the fault of the terrorists and the society that gives rise to the terrorists and holds them in high regard"

That’s right. Those women and children sitting under the artillery shell, it was their fault!

To call it a disaster is absolutely improper.This is what happens in war.

Yeah, totally improper, it’s more like a minor public relations inconvenience.

And naturally, the smell of blood draws out the sharks,
Had they killed 400 million arab muslims, i would have been overjoyed.
The arabs they killed, if asked, would have said that if hamas had the power to slaughter 100,000 - or 4 million jews - they would have enthusiastically declared their support for a strike of this magnitude.
The only thing that is keeping israel from being exterminated is their weapons, once the arab filth believes that it can again be competitive with israel, say iran with an atomic weapon - the all-out massive wars will start again.
Before you start this BS about feeling sorry for lost civilians, as the above poster eloquently said, if the arab filth wasn't firing rockets into israel, then israel wouldn't feel the need to respond.

Normal service is now resumed.

A few make half-hearted attempts to restrain our mad friend, but he is undeterred,
Face it, the monstrous muslim filth wants to kill all of you, and subjugate those they cannot kill as slaves as they did for 1,400 years.
I will not wait until this mass of filth rises again to behead/enslave me as it did to those of the past.
The only way to deal with this scourge, as in the case of their Great Leader Zarqawi, is to eliminate them. If you feel that realistic thoughts of this nature - the only kind that can ensure the perpetuation of Western civilization - are "not jewish," or "barbaric," than I feel sorry for you.
Hopefully, as the terrorist atrocties like 9/11 multiply, in the US, Europe, and elsewhere, with the muslim masses applauding, there will be fewer and fewer individuals like yourself who prefer using soft language and candies to persuade those who seek to destroy you."

The usual rank apologetics pop up.

the IDF is certainly obliged to investigate this matter and they must leave no stone unturned to ensure that it won't happen again. But having said that, I defy anyone to show me any war anywhere in which innocents don't become casualties.

After every atrocity…….no wait, sorry,….. sometimes, when an atrocity is bad enough to grab headlines, the usual mantra of ‘investigations’ is chanted by the faithful. The investigations are of course, carried out by the IDF and routinely end in nothing. Often the hyped ‘investigation’ is quietly dropped once the media interest dies down.

All-in-all a typical example of Israel Forum apologetics; very sorry, didn’t mean it…but it was their fault….had no choice…..investigation…will never happen again.

Until of course, the next time.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Defending Democracy - "Throw a Few Grenades"

Extolling Israels' alleged democracy and contrasting it with routine tryannies in various Middle East countries is standard rhetoric at Israel Forum.

So just how committed to democratic ideals are our Forum fiends?

The yearly "Salute to Israel" parade in New York gives a clue. Apparantly, each year at this momentous event there is a collection of protesters who do the usual thing; chant a few slogans and wave a placard or two, all in support of Palestinian rights, a just peace and an end to Israeli human rights abuses etc.

Basic freedom of speech stuff, right?

Oh no. Not at Isael Forum.

A regular poster, his forum name debasing the term 'rhodescholar', informs us that these protestors are "cordoned-off......for their own protection".

Protection? From what?

Well, it seems from him!

His own words will illustrate the point,
"I was hoping this year that some intelligent people might get together and attack the verminous filth that appears every year at the NYC israeli day parade"

Err, anything specific?
"My dream is to see someone throw a few grenades"

MLK he ain't.

He seems especially upset by the fact that some protestors are "fake Jews".
What on earth are fake Jews?
"either arch-left or supposed 'orthodox' "

Now I understand. Fake Jews are Jewish people who can think for themselves and have a different opinion than the totalitarian right.

Apparantly some make an effort to counter the protesters freedom of speech, but our nut-job fanatic doesn't think they go far enough,
"I advocate a more direct approach, and would like to see them physically, rather than vocally, targeted".

Well, any other suggestions to any mentally unstable individuals who might be reading?
"or more aggressive items, like acid, were delivered on their persons it might inspire more such actions."

Of course! Let's throw acid at people who have opinions we don't like, and maybe it will inspire others to do likewise.

Let's be kind, maybe he's just tired and emotional and is having a wild rant. Surely he wouldn't be using an internet forum to incite violence. Or would he?
"Perhaps the fact that this board is read by many will lead them to decide enough is enough........will lead to sufficient people stepping up and attacking these dogs."

And finishes up with an appeal for peace and harmony. Of his own very special variety.
"Getting back, my goal is twofold: .........explain to the world that jews are not non-violent sheep who will one day walk into gas chambers again - or tolerate the endless arab violence anymore."

Yes, I think it's quite convincing that he is not "non-violent" and I'm personally quite touched by the heartfelt appeal not to "tolerate ...violence anymore".

Anyone seen the phone? I need to dial 911, or the nearest mental health facility.

Update 1:

'rhodescholar' is not alone.
".....There is a need for a new JDL, or similar organizations, that will actually do something, anything, that actually matters to protect the Jewish community from the anti-Semitic assualt. It is certainly unfortunate that there is such a police presence at these events because it limits what you can do. I participated in pro-Israel rally in L.A. several years ago, and I actually managed to knock one of the enemies on the head, during the few seconds before the police got between the two sides. I think causing physical harm to the enemy........"

Yes, peaceful protesters are a sign of "anti-semitic assualt" and we need a new JDL committed to terrorist acts on the streets of New York.

Well, at least the fanatics at Israel Forum think so.

And here I was thinking they were just fanatical keyboard-warriors, when they are actually out on the streets attacking people.

Sunday, June 04, 2006

Spitting on the BBC

BBC bashing is almost compulsory at IsraelForum. While it's likely that most don't even watch the BBC, the crew at IsraelForum are well trained when it comes to knowing, reflexively, whom they should be hating. And the BBC is high on their list of targets.
Most of us have given up on the BBC and have no interest in listening to them or anyone else defend them. They are, on this issue, a bunch of raving racist a-holes"

Well, I won't shed a tear when the Muslims burn the offices down

I spit on the Beeb

Who cares, let the BBC burn.

The BBC recently released a report (warning - pdf file) of the investigation into the impartiality of their Israel-Palestine conflict coverage. It recommended some changes. The most notable, for the IFies, is that the word 'terrorism' should be used in news reports. This is good news from their perspective, because this is one of their favourite gripes about the BBC; it doesn't use their all purpose term of denunciation. Though their enthusiasm for the term has it's limits. Should the BBC start to use the term to describe all acts that fit the description, it wouldn't be long before BBC headlines started to read something like this - "IDF terrorists kill 3 in Ramallah". This would, no doubt, be a case of anti-semitism rather than the BBCs impartiality in news reporting.

While there was some limited joy for Forum fanatics, they obviously hadn't read the report too carefully, or more likely, at all. For the report also addressed criticisms of an all together different kind, namely that BBC coverage has persistently failed to acknowledge the vast asymmtery between the two sides. Often news reportage has given the impression of a conflict between 2 comparable groups, rather than a state with the largest military in the region arrayed against a group of poor, stateless people living under military occupation. As well, the report noted that the impact of the Israeli occupation on the lives of Palestinian people has been given far too little emphasis. This is a general media failing, related to the if-it-bleeds-it-leads phenomenon. This is the money-quote, which notes the BBCs,

failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation

Yes, quite.

As a result expect to see more stories on the BBC like this, "
Palestinian views on travel curbs".

Which will result in an increase in tantrums by Forum fanatics ranting about the anti-semitic BBC. Of course it isn't, it's just trying to do its' best to provide an accurate picture of the Israel-Palestine conflict to the public. And that is something is dedicated to deterring, because a better informed public is likely to be significantly less sympathetic to the Israeli position.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Apologetics: 1967

As the mast-head suggests, one of the favourite activities at Israel Forum is making excuses for Israeli crimes and absolving Israel of all responsibility for it's actions. Israel is forever an innocent bystander, or an unwilling victim of circumstances. This presents itself in two forms of routine apologia; that Israel acts only from the lack of better options or that Israel is forced into situations by the acts of others, who then bear all responsibility for the consequences of what they made Israel do. All quite lame really.

The June 1967 war (the Six Day War) is a case in point. This war is an all-time favourite with Israels apologists for 2 reasons; it 'proves' Arab determination to destroy Israel and, even better, goes on to form the rationale for their baseless claims of a 'defensive war' that renders Israels' occupation of the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza legal.

Here's a few examples from our Forum apologists par exellance,

"they forced Israel to mobilize it's citizen army to ward off the threat of actual Arab attacks………. So, Israel had no other option than to initiate it's preemptive strike which was the six days war……….. Israel had no other choice than to do what it did"

"They pretend that the Arabs weren't going to attack in 67, that the blockade of Israel's oil port for two weaks didn't mean anything…….ordan and Syria struck first after Israel struck Egypt...."

And that is from the more rational end of the fanatical spectrum at Israel Forum.

This is the quick version of the Israeli mythical Six Day War - After much bellicose rhetoric, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, removed the UN peace keeping force from the Sinai. Then finally, the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Egypt were poised to strike with 250,000 men at tiny, vulnerable Israel. To save itself (no choice), Israel launched a perfectly legal war of self-defense in which it captured the Sinai, West Bank and the Golan Heights.

Well, that's the self-serving myth. And reality? Well, it's a little more complicated.

Bellocosity? Sure. Arab leaders have often been good at inflammatory rhetoric. The question is, is it for domestic consumption or does it indicate imminent action?

The Striats of Tiran Blockade? Well, it wasn't really a blockade. Egypt announced it was being closed to Israeli shipping, but studies of the period are unable to identify a single ship that was stopped from using the route. An example of rhetoric not being transformed into action. The background to this issue is that the status of this waterway was unclear. Egypt claimed it was an Egyptian territorial waterway, Israel that is was an international waterway. Under international law, it was an ambiguous case that required a legal determination.

The UN Peace Keeping Force? UNEF was put in place after Israels' invasion of Egypt in 1956. That is, it was there to protect Egypt from Israeli aggression. It was in place with Egyptian approval and Egypt had the right to request it to leave. Does this mean that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel? By itself no. Egypt was saying that it no longer feared Israel or required UN protection. A mistake? - definitely, as Egypt should have still been afraid, very afraid.

Imminent Attack? There is no evidence of any planned attack by the Egypt, Syria and Jordan against Israel in 1967. Later? Who knows, but that is pure speculation. What Israels apologists do claim is that the Arab forces wanted to destroy Israel and that a pre-emptive strike was the only way to save Israel from great losses and possible defeat. But later, Israeli Generals from the 1967 war gave a very different view. They said that Israel knew that the Arab armies were far inferior to Israels, Israel would easily win any war and that there was no real risk of an Arab invasion. Both US and Israeli intelligence predicted that Israel would defeat the Arab armies in a matter of days. They were right.
"The heart of the question, however, is aimed at our estimation of the Arabs’ capacity to destroy us. Had the Arabs attacked first, they would have also suffered complete defeat. The only difference is that the war then would have been prolonged; to command control of the air maybe 13 hours would have been needed instead of three" - Ezer Weizmann. Israeli Air force General.

"..the Epyptians concentrated 80,000 soldiers in the Sinai, and we mobilized hundreds of thousands against them” – former Israeli general Matti Peled (Ha’artez, March 13, 1972.)

One Israelis opinion of Nassers intent,"he felt the need to give more credibility to his bluff" - Gen. Yitzhak Rabin (Le Monde, February 28, 1968).

The next element in this story is the 'constant' attacks on Israel by Palestinian fighters. In the 6 months preceding June 1967, there were no Israeli fatalities on it's northern border with Syria - 0. Rather, a decade long pattern of Israeli aggression was continuing to play out. Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan explained how it worked,
" I know how at least 80% of all these incidents there started. In my opinion, more than 80%, but lets speak about the 80%. It would go like this: we would send in a tractor to plow… the de-miltarised area, and we would know ahead of time that the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not start shooting, we would inform the tractor to progress farther, until the Syrians in the end, would get nervous and would shoot. And then we would use guns, and later even the airforce, and that is how it went….We thought that we could change the lines of the ceasefire accords by military actions that were less than war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us"

This culminated in an April 1967 incident where Israels' airforce entered Syrian airspace and shot down 6 Syrian aircraft. It was this incident that finally lead to Egypt closing the Straits and removing the UN force from its' Sinai border. Could this be honestly, if mistakenly, interpreted as preparations for war? We'll let the Israeli general Rabin decide,
"I do not think that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent to the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to start an offensive against Israel. He knew it, and we knew it."- Gen. Yitzhak Rabin.

So, the head of Israels armed forces thought it was a bluff. Israels armed forces were far superior to all the Arab forces combined, and the 'action' on Israels borders with Jordan and Syria was either minor, or was deliberately provoked by Israel.

Then on June 4, 1967 Israel launches a direct attack against Egypt, which has not fired a shot or set foot on Israeli territory and goes on to invade Jordan and Syria, capturing the West Bank and Golan Heights. This is the much acclaimed 'defensive war', which subsequently allows the Israel Forum fanatics to claim that the West Bank and Gaza are not illegally occupied by Israel.

Pure apologetics, parroted by those who have sacrificed their gift of critical thought on the alter of ultra-nationalism.