Israel Forum Watch

The Fanatics

2008-09-02T23:01:00.003+09:30

A curious feature of the Israel-Palestine conflict is that many of the most intractable views exist outside the geographical area. If you look at the Palestinian side, the first 2 state solution supporters emerged inside the Occupied Territories while many of those outside it where still struggling to ‘liberate all of Palestine’.

Likewise, you can fin some of the most strident views against any sort of compromise, not in Israel, but amongst Israels supporters in the US. Just look here.

The prisoner swap involving Samir Qantar has demonstrated this curious situation.

“I will literally walk out on Israel and no longer support nor fundraise for the country any longer if they release Kuntar under any circumstances. I will no longer spend time working with various international organizations who benefit Israel through appeals and public relations……………If anything, Israel should have executed members of Kuntar's family in Lebanon in response to his unimaginable crimes, …………………….Releasing him would be a slap in the face of myself and everyone who has labored extensively for decades on behalf of the state of Israel, and I will no longer support the country financially or through any other means moving forward should he be released.” – second_coming

“Frankly, I get the impression that the current Israeli administration has changed the country into something that's very difficult for me to support.
For me, it started with the Gaza expulsion and talk of doing the same in the West Bank. The scenes of Jewish families being ethnically cleansed by the IDF shook my faith in Israelis. I no longer felt as connected as before.
Likewise, the years of IDF failure to secure the country from Hamas and Hezbullah raised serious questions about what Israelis are doing with our money, military assistance and political cover.” – NewsGuy

But that’s not going quite far enough for our now disillusioned Israel firster. Israels failure to resist any kind of compromise is seen as a moral failure,

“This is yet another wake-up call to show that so much of Israeli society is weak and stupid, led by a corrupt, immoral government -- due to its own fault. I am constantly reminded that while I support Israel as the Jewish homeland, I feel contempt for much of Israeli society. Sorry to say it, but it's true.” – NewsGuy

His lament continues,

“We all know that the big concern for the lives of Israeli citizens and this big show of moral superiority are really a cynical joke to cover up Israel's military weakness and political corruption.” - NewsGuy

Any compromise or negotiation is “weakness”.

I guess it’s easy to demand more blood when it’s others blood, and you’re sitting in your favourite armchair far, far away in New York or LA.

“Stories That Put Israel in Good Light”

2008-06-17T23:14:00.004+09:30

While IF has its out and out crazies, as in the previous post, there are a few rarer sorts, who at least understand the importance of image when even discussing the issue of image. It’s important to at least appear rational and reasonable, rather than foaming at the mouth crazy. But for all that, our next contributor is little different on the substance,

“Given the history of this conflict, Israel seems to be always on the back foot and that's just incomprehensible to me. Any other nation in a similar situation would have been able to capture the higher ground and make the other side be on the defensive…….We don't seem to be able to feed the media with stories that would put the other side on the back foot or conversely, some stories that put Israel in good light even though I'm sure that there are plenty of stories like that to tell too (eg medical treatment etc)...” – reffo

Yes it's simply incomprehensible that substance outweighs spin. Have they never heard the phrase – you can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ear?

Take our poor deluded friend above and his plaintive plea for good stories on “medical treatment”.

Like this one ?? - The PA was paying Israel to provide cancer treatment to Palestinian children, where the Palestinian services and specialists are lacking (which is mostly everywhere courtesy of Israeli policy). A 12 yr old girl died from cancer after the Israeli hospital the PA was paying for her care, provided grossly negligent treatment including the use of outdated equipment that isn’t used in the treatment of Israeli children.

Perhaps we could add to that, stories about Palestinian women dying in labour (45) when refused passage through IDF checkpoints and the restriction on goods entering Gaza resulting in the complete unavailability of 23 essentials drugs as of the end of April .

Plenty of stories. Not sure about that “good light” though.

“Death Camps” in Gaza: A PR problem.

2008-06-17T18:08:00.002+09:30

Our fine examples of humanity apply their collective wisdom to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza,

“What should be done about Gaza? I think it should be completely cut off, and there should be a law prohibiting any contact whatsoever with any residents of that territory. They should be given a deadline by which their electricity and water will be cut off. Obviously, there should be no supplies or anything at all delivered to them through Israel. They can do it through Egypt, or they can all starve to death for all I care.” - Kettlewhistle

Harsh? Oh no…

“The terrorists and their supporters in Gaza definitely deserve to starve to death, but the problem is that Israel cannot sustain images of Palestinians looking like the Jews liberated from the Nazi death camps.” – NewsGuy

Just an image problem then? But a little lateral thinking can get around such pressing public relations concerns,

"In terms of a plan, Israel should assassinate a high profile Hamas operative, then at his funeral, as thousands of Hamas terrorists gather, drop a dozen or so 1 ton bombs on the crowd of terrorists.. " – NewsGuy

Gaza, The Final Solution: “Kill Everyone”

2008-02-04T23:24:00.000+09:30

Yes, it’s been a while.

The recent events in Gaza seem like a good opportunity to return to IsraelForum to see if the nature of the commentary has undergone any….moderation?

A senior member starts off a thread,

Hamas has floated the idea of using similar tactics to what it did on the Rafah crossing to flood into Israel.

Israel needs to be prepared for such a mostly non-violent attempt to destroy Israel's sovereignty and/or create a huge PR disaster against Israel…….use rubber bullets and tear gas, and arrest the Pal Arabs by the THOUSANDS. Literally. The goal would be to take any Pal Arab who crosses the board, handcuff them, and get them into the prison camp - arrested for illegal entry into Israel.

That’s far too touchy-feely for some,

Why arrest anyone? Any horde stupid enough to cross into a sovereign land of another people, during a state of war especially, should be met with violent instant death. Thats what we call an invasion. Shoot them dead. All of them, their sheep and goats. Cover the cadavers, one and all with dog manure and anthrax.

And he’s not the only one,

the only prudent thing would be to do anything that is necessary to stop such an action. If you have to fire on the crowds to get them back over the border, then so be it.

But as usual, the smell of blood brings out the sharks,

we can take preliminary measures and kill everyone in Gaza.
problem solved.
WB next.

All of which passes without comment, let alone censure, from the forum ‘moderators’.

And why wouldn’t it, advocating mass murder on the scale of the Holocaust is just par for the course for the racist extremists at IsraelForum.

40 Years of Occupation: 1967-2007.

2007-06-04T22:25:00.000+09:30

Forty years of Israeli occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip is an obvious time to revisit the past and speculate on future directions. There will be plenty of attention from others on Israels illegal occupation itself, as well as the details such as land confiscations, house demolitions, expulsions, political prisoners, checkpoints, and of course, the settlement enterprise.

But I want to look at something a little different. Something that has been working away quietly in the background, significantly enabling Israel’s control of the Palestinian population and it’s attacks on Palestinian attempts at national liberation. An insidious and destructive phenomenon that rarely gets the attention it deserves – Israels network of informants, more commonly (interestingly) discussed in terms of the Palestinian side of the equation - ‘collaboration’. This is the work of the Shabak (AKA ISA). It’s an extension of the work that the Zionist movement adopted in the pre-state period, taking advantage of petty criminals, petty disputes and general Palestinian heterogeneity to collect crucial information, identify targets, exacerbate differences and recruit allies.

There has been some recent attention to the issue, and several books. One of the most recent is by Israeli historian Hillel Cohen, ‘Good Arabs’ (only in Hebrew currently), which examines collaboration by Palestinian Israelis under military rule in Israel.. An earlier book, ‘Army of Shadows’ looked at the pre-state period. The first account by a Palestinian that touched on this subject was Fouzi el-Asmar’s ‘To be an Arab in Israel'.

Also coming soon is Shira Robinsons book based on her PhD thesis, 'Occupied Citizens in a Liberal State: Palestinians Under Military Rule and the Colonial Formation of Israeli Society, 1948-1966'.

Most deal with the situation of the Palestinians inside Israel. A similar story waits to be told about the extensive spy networks set up in the OT’s post June 1967. Israel applied the lessons it learned in the first 20 years in Israel, to the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. When the full details eventually emerge, it will undoubtedly look something like, possibly even worse than, the Stasi of the former East Germany. Focussing on the occupation ignores this other salient feature of the OTs – that they are also a secret police state, a veritable ‘ShabakLand’, where Palestinians have to consider whom amongst their family and friends may be Shabak informers.

The techniques for recruiting informers has changed little except that in the Israeli controlled OTs, Shabak agents found even more fertile ground for coercion. Access to jobs, permits for travel and medical treatment were productive tools, not to mention torture and blackmail. A study in 2004 by New Profile titled ‘Child Recruitment in Israel’ (PDF) stands out for its’ identification of the Shabaks' practice of recruiting Palestinian child informants by torture and threats against the childs’ family.

Killings at the hands of the Israeli military obviously garner more attention, but the recruitment of informants by the occupation forces are also breaches of the Geneva Conventions. They also represent a very dark and little known side of the 40 year subjugation of the Palestinian people.

1967: "Wasted Victory"?

2007-06-02T23:45:00.000+09:30

As we approach the 40 years of Israeli occupation, our forum fanatics turn their attention to how it all went so wrong, stimulated by this story in The Economist. In their own special way, of course.

“Israel's victory was wasted. Let's look at an alternative scenario here:
1967 victory, Arabs are incouraged to run away from the evil Joos ........... they run away, Judea and Samaria are annexed, Gaza is annexed, the Temple Mount is turned into a historical/archeological site atracting millions of tourists every year, there are no Arabs to start intifadas or terrorism insde the country, ………... Sounds good? Yes it does.
So why is this not the case then? Because the whole situation was mishandled to the core by the retards and traitors on the left, who put our enemies interests before ours.” – Kettlewhistle

OK, so a failure of total ethnic cleansing – that's the chance that was "wasted"!!

A regular who likes to present him/herself as the ‘moderate’ face of Zionist fanaticism, finds the logic attractive,

“Sometimes, during weak moments, especially lately, I actually think you are right. I mean, no matter what Israel does, the Arabs and their allies, the so called humanists vilify and demonize it. So Israel may as well live up to the expectations of the polemicist accusers.....
However, I don't think that Israel would have been allowed to get away with what you suggest.” – Reffo

Yep, the moral constraint on ethnic cleansing from the moderate Zionist perspective is that you may not “get away with that”.

But that’s a bit too much rectitude for the hard-core fanatics,

“Your type of attitude is what I call the Jewish version of the Stockholm syndrome……..In 1967 we won a battle. Instead of building on it, and bringing peace to this country, the Leftists lost us the war, and put us on the path of Arabization.” – KW.

Hmmm, nasty that “Arabization”. Miscegenation anyone?

However, it hits the mark with our ‘moderate’, quickly defending himself against the charge of being one of those who may have supported some kind if evil co-existence involving an abandonment of the settlement enterprise,

“C'mon Kettle, this post was uncalled for. You know very well that the attitude that you attribute to me is way off the mark. Just read my ad nauseum interchanges with the likes of Takeo, Sumud, Michael and many others. I am certainly not one who advocates turning the other cheek but I also know what is practical and I also know that anyone who goes completely overboard in ignoring morality ends up with more than they bargained for” - Reffo

Then to top it off, a typically bizarre rant from on of the ‘Senior’ forum fanatics,

“They hate you and want you dead and they always will, no matter what. No point in arguing the point. You could be teaching algebra to dogs for all the good it would do. They want you dead. The Palestinians officially want you dead, their friends in the west want you dead.” – Mediocre

Fanatical and paranoid. Don’t be surprised when the 50th year of Israeli occupation rolls by.

No Arabs Please, We’re Zionists.

2007-05-25T23:31:00.000+09:30

“A French immigrant living in Israel made the news today when he was arrested for the murder of an Arab cab driver from East Jerusalem. The Israeli admitted that he murdered the Arab simply because he was an Arab. It was a premeditated act of hatred, and one which is very rare, but no less despicable.
To put this act in perspective, nearly every day, including today, Palestinians are murdered in factional violence at the hands of their own brothers. For example, today in particular, four Arabs were murdered by their fellow Arabs in the Gaza Strip. Likewise, Islamist terrorists attempt to mass-murder Jewish citizens and commit unspeakable acts of terrorism against Jews each and every day.
Despite the ongoing threat from Arab terrorists, it is extraordinarily rare that Jewish citizens retaliate against the Arabs. In fact, Muslims stroll freely through the streets of Jewish cities throughout Israel, and comprise a whopping 20% of Israel’s population.
Nonetheless, today’s murder is inexcusable as it represents a grave danger to society and to the cause of finding a just solution to the global Muslim terrorism problem. No legitimate political movement in Israel, or elsewhere, can condone this criminal act.” - NewsGuy

Well that’s a commendable effort. Pardon my cynicism, but was it sincere? Others quickly get to the real issue (the eternal issue),

"Part of expelling Arabs from Israel so it can survive will involve the use of terror by israelis. We all know there is no civil solution, which is why no attempt has ever borne fruit.If Israelis want Israel to be a Jewish state they will have to break some laws and take some lives. They can also opt to do nothing, and it may well be that Israelis will give up Israel rather than fight a dirty war. That is the free choice of Israelis, but they shouldn't fail to ADMIT that to keep Israel a Jewish state will require ethnic cleansing. Idefy anyone to submit another way for israel to avoid being demographically overturned from within."

Such conversation seems to dis-inhibit our initial poster,

"Right. I also believe that to stop the bloodshed on both sides, there must be separation between Arabs and Jews. I would like the Arabs to live in peace and dignity in their own Muslim countries, not in Israel, and I support creating a political, economic, and social climate that would encourage the Arabs to leave. "– NewsGuy

And murdering them in the streets certainly does help in creating the social climate to “encourage the Arabs to leave”.

More Zionist Dreams: "to invent some sort of deadly germ that'll only attack Arabs"

2007-04-29T22:57:00.000+09:30

One of the craziest from a crazy bunch is a regular (KettleWhistle) who became a senior member on the strength of his boasts about his support for Yitzhak Rabins assassination and how he desecrated Rabins grave.

KettleWhistle is in heaven after 2 Israeli’s are beaten up. It’s OK, as they are just “left-wing activists” and they were assaulted by settlers in Hebron. He calls this “defending the homeland”.

These people are not benign hippies. They are aiding the enemy. …….. It's a matter of defending our land and people from enemies and traitors.

And in response to someone referring to an incident where a settler attacked a Swedish peace activist with a bottle,

Yes, I heard about it. That should teach her a lesson.

Others join in to lament the terrible idea of Jewish Israelis having any human feeling towards their neighbours,

..they are traitors, and for an israeli to be a pacifist is to directly give aid and comfort to the enemy, ................... There is no reason to allow "democracy" to be the way bad Israelis sell the place out to the Arabs.

KettleWhistle returns to defend the idea that ethnic cleansing and democracy are compatible,

and it is not undemocratic to kick the Arabs out

And then shares his tolerant views on Israeli peace types,

These people are not any sort of "hippies". They are vile supporters of terrorism.

And then on Palestinians,

As for taking their kids to school, and what have you, if the Arabs want their kids going to school, want to grow olives, and do other such things, they need to put diapers on their heads, get on their camels and donkeys, and head out East. This is Israel, not Ishmael.

Yes, if you’re an Israeli-Palestinian, you have no business sending your kids to school, or growing olives, in Israel.

But wait, it gets 'better'. Another forum fanatic has a brilliant idea,

Look, my wildest dream is probably to invent some sort of deadly germ that'll only attack Arabs but we both know this isn't going to happen and there are international laws everyone must obey, and don't forget they too believe it's their homeland. I suppose there's no "right" and "wrong" here.

Our main fanatic suggests a more nuanced plan,

Quite frankly, if I had something like this in my possession, I'd give them an ultimatum, not actually release it out.

Don’t laugh, he’s serious, as shown in a subsequent post,

We are well past the point where property purchases mean much, or anything for that matter. It's time for action. For example, I'm trying to organize the Jewish youth in the area [Hebron] to set up some action groups to block MDA from reaching the Arabs. If Arabs want medical services they can build their own. So, the initial plan is to basically stand in front of the ambulances and not move, not matter how much they yell, or honk. By the time the police/IDF arrive, the activists will start to avidly, but peacefully, argue with them to stall some more. Meanwhile, the next action group will be ready just down the road. I'm really hoping that we'll be able to implement this within a year or so.

Maybe I should reconsider calling them ‘fanatics’, it might be a bit tough on fanatics.

This is the side of the fanatical Zionists that the world really needs to see to understand why peace is so elusive in this conflict.

They have a dream: “The coming war with Islam”.

2007-04-10T14:09:00.000+09:30

This is the stuff of the pleasant day dreams of our forum fanatics. Nothing brightens their day like wistful thoughts of ‘war with Islam’. Though you do wonder what war against a particular religion would look like. Maybe they’ll just destroy mosques and burn the Koran. Let’s see what insane ideas they have for us.

drop a couple of neutron's and lets get on with our lives...

Sweet, aren’t they?

The real question is what are the best ways for civilized democracies to survive the barbarism that comes out of the backward, brutal, radical Muslim world.
How can the civilized world ( any nation, not just Israel ) deal with radical Muslims, who obviously lack human compassion, and have no souls or normal human feelings. If the radical Muslim world is not stopped, it will destroy the civilized world, and then everyone on this planet will be living similar to the Muslim world, in poverty, in misery, in brutal, backward dictatorships.
I believe that the civilized nations must do everything possible to rid this world of the cancerous threat from the radical Muslim world. If that means sending agents into every other nation of this world to do it, then so be it. It must be done.

Yes, Islam is taking over the world reducing it to barbarism, therefore we must kill, kill, kill, in the name of civilisation. But then, they aren’t actually human like us, so it’s OK.

Of course, the forum fanatics are not without their own brand of sophisticated moral philosophers,

Instead of quibbling about a few lives here and there, why not just FIGHT? "Utter savagery" is required to defeat the enemy, no matter WHOSE side you are on. To pretend differently is to lie to and weaken yourself. To expect to fight a surgically precise war is absurd. So many people act as if legalistic micro-management of each human action in the war between cultures will solve anything. This is a large struggle but the tendency is to overly analyze each trivial event. The West is fond of this, and while navel-gazing may be entertaining it doesn't smash the enemy ranks. That takes shot and shell.
Human processes are sloppy, wars are sloppy, and cultural wars are VERY sloppy. Let's admit that there will probably be hundreds of thousands of casualties once the war gets up to speed. To admit a thing is not to welcome it, but to understand it!
Let's ACCEPT that resolution is beyond debate, and start considering how the side we choose may seek advantage. Culture war erases the fundamental need for the subjective construct of "right". We try to inculcate the concept of "right" to make sheeple behave. This works fine among social groups where people need each others cooperation. It is not a useful invention for a struggle where an enemy must be destroyed. Self-imposed obstacles fall away when we choose, with considered forethought, to stop imposing them. Since we fight an obstacle free opponent (not because he is obstacle-free, but because his desired end-result differs from ours) we should not tie our own hands for academic reasons.
The war with islam is not because of the name we call one of its techniques ("terrorism"), but because we do not prefer the society it produces. Let's not confuse process with result. If we are willing to fight, that implies a willingness to sacrifice ourselves as individuals. If that is an acceptable sacrifice, so is collateral damage. Collateral damage is people. Tough excrement.

Yes, that’s right, the war with Islam has, as it’s goal, the elimination of an entire society. Would trains and work camps do the trick?

Hmmmm, straight-jacket, or chemical restraint……which is best?

Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967

2007-03-03T21:03:00.000+09:30

Discussions of the origins of the conflict are generally resolved with the standard IsraelForum retort – they started it.

I’ve presented a more realistic version of events leading up to the Six Day War, but here I’ll look a bit more closely at the region that was pivotal in 1967 – the Israeli-Syrian border.

This is a fairly typical statement from the IsraelForum fanatics on the topic,

Arab attacks from Jordan and Syria had been ongoing pre 1967 - and Israel responded. But, in terms of excalation[sic] of the conflict, it is undisputed that at the start of what is called the 6-day war, Syria and Jordan fired first, declaring war.

Some people refer to the on-going shelling by Syria into northern Israel as an example of the belligerency of Israels' neighbours leading up to Israels' so-called pre-emptive war. As usual it’s not as simple or as convenient as Israel’s apologists make out.

Let’s start with the situation on the ground as it was in the aftermath of the 1948-49 war. After the war, Israel found itself with 5791 sq. km more land (40% more) than was allocated under the UN Partition Plan. Israel occupied extensive areas of territory that were meant to be an Arab state and all of the land allocated to the Jewish state. Well, almost all. In the new state’s north, there were 3 small patches of land occupied by Syria that under Partition, were allocated to Israel. They comprised 0.4% (66.5 sq. km) of the land that the UN had allocated it. And this 0.4% was to be the source of trouble out of all proportion to its size.

The Syrian-Israeli Armistice agreement of 1949 was meant to freeze the position of troops as at April 13, 1949, the date of the last cease-fire. Israel signed the armistice on condition that those 66.5 sq. km’s captured by Syria were included in the Israeli-Syrian demilitarized zone, over which neither were to have legal sovereignty pending a final settlement. Israel rejected similar proposals for land it had captured from the proposed Arab state, to be incorporated into a DMZ.

The DMZ was to be supervised by the UN Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO) and the Israeli-Syrian Mixed Armistice Committee (MAC).

The next year, the first problems emerged. Israel began draining a lake adjacent to the DMZ, which involved moving onto Arab-owned land inside the DMZ. The farmers shot at the Israeli workers inside the DMZ. Israeli border police and armed settlers fired back, with tensions escalating over following months.

Syria filed a complaint with the MAC, which ordered Israel to cease the work. Israel refused and in March 1951 declared that the land in the DMZ belonged to Israel, and expelled around 2000 Arab residents of the three villages in the DMZ, then bulldozed their homes. Armed Syrian irregular forces continued to fire on the Israels working in the DMZ. Israel responded by bombing nearby villages in Syria.

This lead to a new UNSC Resolution (93) requesting Israel to cease its activities in the DMZ. Resolution 93 also called for the return of the 2000 expelled villagers. Israel refused to comply, but eventually a few hundred returned. Israel then effectively withdrew from the MAC.

In 1953 Israel once again commenced irrigation works in the DMZ to divert water from the Jordan River. The UNSC once again passed a resolution (UNSC Res.100) requesting that Israel cease the work. Eventually, Israel complied after the US suspended economic assistance over the works.

In December 1954, a small squad of Israeli soldiers entered Syrian territory to tap Syrian military communications. They were captured and held by Syria, resulting in an Israeli raid aimed at capturing Syrian soldiers for an exchange. Five Syrian soldiers were captured, but no prisoner exchange took place. Clashes continued. On December 11, 1955 an Israeli force crossed into Syria attacking 2 Syrian positions, killing 56 Syrian troops. The day before Israel claimed that a ‘police’ boat had come under fire from the eastern shore of Lake Tiberias. Israel used armoured landing craft to patrol the waters of the lake, sending the boats close to the Syrian shore-line to assert Israel’s claim to the entire lake.

A UNTSO officer described it as,

a premeditated raid of intimidation, motivated by Israel’s desire to test the strength of the Egyptian-Syrian mutual defence pact [signed in Oct. 1955] ……to bait the Arab states into some overt act of aggression that would offer then the opportunity to overrun additional territory without censure.

The UNSTO chief-of-staff commented on the Syrian policy towards Israel in the DMZ,

….policy as regards Israel was to avoid incidents and situations which might involve Syria in active hostilities, for he [Syrian CoS] realized his army’s weakness in the face of the Israelis’ superior armament, training and organization

The UNSC again passed a resolution (UNSC Res. 111) noting Israels “flagrant violation” of the armistice. Not long after Israel invaded Egypt.

There was again trouble in the southern DMZ in 1957. Israeli border police and settlers began working on an irrigation project in one of the Syrian villages in the DMZ. Israeli border police prevented Arab farmers from working in their land. UN pressure forced Israel to relent, but in the next year they recommenced similar work in the same area, with the result that villagers opened fire on the Israeli border police, whose presence was another violation of the armistice. Efforts by the villagers to work their own fields led to exchanges of gun fire with the border police. Israeli fire came in from nearby settlements and Syrian gunners began shelling from the Golan Heights. Then in January 1960, Israel conducted a major offensive, capturing the village and blowing up the homes, with Syrian artillery again responding, forcing an Israeli withdrawal.

Shooting on the lake occurred again in March 1962, between Israeli parol boats and Syrian positions on the shore. Israeli troops entered Syrian territory attacking villages and military positions. The UNSC passed another resolution (UNSC Res.171) condemning Israels violation of Resolution 111.

In December, Israeli tractors began ploughing Arab-owned land in the DMZ. Syrian positions fired at the tractors and shelled the nearby settlement where they came from.

In 1964 an Israeli irrigation project began diverting water from the Jordan River. No agreement had been made on water-sharing so both Syria and Lebanon began their own projects to draw water from streams feeding into the Jordan. Israel responded with artillery shelling of the facilities and work areas. In 1966 the Israeli air-force bombed areas 12 kms inside Syria to prevent the diversion projects completion.

Further significant incidents involving disputed work inside the DMZs continued in ’64 and ’66, the latter turning into a major battle involving aircraft and artillery . Attempts were made through the MAC to resolve the issues, but Israel claimed sovereignty over the entire DMZ, and Syria called for the expelled villagers to be allowed to return to their homes.

January 1967 saw Arab farmers again fired on by Israeli border police as they attempted to work their fields in the southern DMZ. Syria responded by shelling the Israeli settlements in the DMZ. On April 3, the Israeli Govt announced that it would cultivate the entire DMZ, as it was part of Israel. On the 7^th Israeli armoured tractors moved into the area and began ploughing. They were fired on by Syrian troops, the fighting escalated with Syrian artillery firing into the area and then with Israeli aircraft bombing Syrian villages and military positions in the Golan Heights. The Syrian air-force sent six planes, but all where shot-down inside Syria.

And so began the series of events that would lead to the Six Day War. Egypt was heavily criticised for not coming to the aid of Syria. The USSR informed Egypt that Israel was planning a full-scale attack on Syria in mid-May. Nasser moved, and the rest is history. Israel launched its “defensive war” on June 5, claiming imminent attack from Egypt. Israel wiped out the Egyptian and Syrian air forces, invaded Jordan and then when that was finished, 3 days later on June 8, invaded Syria capturing the Golan Heights (but not before attacking and trying to sink the USS Liberty on June 7).

That it was simply “Syrian shelling” from the Golan that lead to conflict between Israel and Syria is far too simple. The head of UNSTO gave a fair summary of the situation on the Israel-Syria border between 1949-1967,

The Israelis claimed sovereignty over the territory covered by the DMZ……They then proceeded, as opportunity offered, to encroach on the specific restrictions, and so eventually to free themselves, on various pretexts, from all of them…………The Israelis in fact exercised almost complete control over the major portion of the DMZ through their frontier police in the area. This was directly contrary to Article V of the General armistice Agreement...

A view that was confirmed by famous Israeli General and later Defence Minister Moshe Dayan,

I know how at least 80% of all these incidents there [border with Syria] 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…..in 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.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque

2007-02-23T23:04:00.000+09:30

There have been controversial building works going on at the Al-Haram al-Sharif of late, eliciting some very angry protests from Palestinians.

The crazies at IF have a solution, one long held dear by the most fanatical Jewish extremists (yes, that is a redundancy).

the reason we have all these problems is because the leftists in Israel refused to do the right thing in 67/73, and still refuse to just demolish all these descecrations on our Temple Mount, and thus end this story once and for all.

Arabs are already pissed off that they can't get more angry. Just blow up the damn Mosque and get it over with……….I'm sick of these threats. Destroy it, let the Arabs whine, build the Temple and then move on.

However, given the Arab mentality, I do believe that it would be by far beneficial in the long term to just demolish all their structures.

The al Aqsa mosque was built and is currently located directly on top of Judaism's holiest site, the Temple Mount. It's existence is an insult to Judaism………………sn't it high-time that Israel closed down the al Aqsa mosque?

Why close it down when it can be blown up?

One wonders what they would make of suggestions to blow up synagogues? Religious bigots at Israel Forum? Surely not.

Peace with Syria?

2007-01-28T11:32:00.000+09:30

The forum fanatics endlessly drone on how Palestinians and neighbouring Arab countries don’t really don’t want peaceful co-exist with Israel, Well, for some time now, Syria has been making loud overtures to Israel for a peace accord. The parameters of a potential deal are well-known, return of the occupied Golan in exchange for full peace. What do the Forum crazies think of this?

Anyhow, I do hope that if some insane [Israeli] leader will try to pull that off, somebody will shoot him/her. IMO, giving away our homeland is the red line a leader has to cross to deserve to be shot. – Kettlewhistle

Ah, the sweet sounds of peace……..a shot rings out in Rabin Square again, an Israeli PM lying dead on the ground. The threat of peace avoided again.

Update:
All the usual suspects are running scared from the awful threat of peace with Syria.

Fanatical Fantasies - An Iranian Holocaust

2007-01-25T23:07:00.000+09:30

After a long end of year break, I ventured back into the cess-pool that is IsraelForum.com. Given the prevailing climate on Iran, I was sure I’d find something interesting. Sure enough, after an exhausting 30 second search, I came across this,

The whole approach is dumb. Don't threaten Iran by saying you'll surgically strike some specific underground high tech sites. Threaten them by telling them you'll take out 45% of Tehran, all their power generation and all of their ports. Eyin Tachat Eyin.

The urban center of Tehran is 255 sq mi and holds about 7.3 million people. 1 well placed air burst in the 200-250 kT range would have an effective radius of near complete destruction either through blast, heat or +2-5 psi overpressure out to approx >5 miles at the 3900 ft elevation over flat terrain, unobstructed.

Many models would put the death rate at near 75-85% or higher in that area within 1 week. If we figure that city center has a population density during the day of ~20,000/sq mi and the coverage area, averaged is half that density, is 75 sq mi x 10,000/sq mi @ 80% death immediately that's 600,000. Figure in another 1-3 million homeless and another 500-600,000 dead in 90 days from residual effects, exposure, hunger, disease and general breakdown in infrastructure plus non fatal injuries 2-3x the death rate or roughly another 3.6 million injured + >3 million displaced in the first 3 months plus a complete eradication of a functioning government or economy. In my mind that's damned close to 1.2 + 3.6 + 3 or 11% of the country's population dead, starving, homeless, in the dark and cold. And that's in the first 90 days. 18 months out, things really start to look grim; maybe mass exodus out of the country, radiation sickness and disease from lack of health care is rampant, a return to the dark ages, evaporation of all civil order, biblical plagues, black death, un reclaimable urban centers. - Mediocrates

Sorry to post the whole thing, but it’s so mind-numbingly bloodthirsty I thought it worthwhile. Afterall, my purpose here is to demonstrate the routine extremism of the pro-Israel fanatics.

And they rarely disappoint.

Get Carter........and Baker.

2006-12-21T22:40:00.000+09:30

There’s an outbreak of hysterics following the release of Jimmy Carters book ‘Palestine: Peace or Apartheid?’, and the Iraq Study Group report lead by James Baker.

The crime of these two establishment stalwarts, is their failure to toe the Israel-first line. Imagine, this pair of fools think that US policy should, first and foremost, serve the interests of the US. Such naivety!

Onto the hysterics,

"it's an act of classic anti-Semitism, pure and simple. The proposal is, basically to treat the Jews as the world's communal slave who can be ordered around on the whim of others".- KW

"appeasers. For the Democrats, Jimmy Carter stands out while the Republicans have the likes of Baker" – Reffo

They’re horrified that anyone could dare suggest even discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict without Israel present ,

"To discuss the future of a Jewish state by excluding a representative of said State is in blatant disregard for their right to self determination, and that is in fact, anti-Semitic" - redcake.

So of course they’d be dead against any one-sided imposed plan like…… er…..unilateral disengagement??

The ISG report stirs our heroes to WWII comparisons, ie Baker is an appeaser,

"people like Baker and their ilk think sacrificing Israel to the Islamofascist wolves will bring 'peace in our time' to the US".- Yala

"Chamberlain treated Cheslovakia on the eve of WW2, as a sacrificial lamb for 'Peace in Our Time' ....."- Reffo

One thing you can be sure of at IsraelForum – never an original idea.

It’s an amazing response that reconfirms (to me at least) that these guys are our modern day equivalent of the Stalinists. Everything must be about, and for, the object of their undying adoration. Anything less than 100% support is treason.

Carter and Baker are no starry-eyed idealists, but pragmatists from the realist school of international relations. They aren’t especially interested in justice for the Palestinians, they simply recognise that the current situation is harmful to the imperial interests of the US. They expect US policy to serve those interests, and where it doesn’t, they advocate change. Hence the ISG suggestion that the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria in exchange for peace with Syria. But our Forum fanatics have zero interest in peace –‘better the Golan without peace than peace without the Golan’.

Update:
Snap! Maybe it was just too obvious. All I can say is that I thought of it first. Yes, Chris Hedges’ article is dated Dec 20, but I wrote mine last week and only got around to posting it yesterday. Honest.

Raining Qassams

2006-11-27T14:22:00.000+09:30

The IF fanatics know that the source of all trouble in Gaza is caused by the Palestinian militants who fire Qassams into southern Israel.

If we don’t bomb them they fire. If we do bomb them they stop. Simple equation. –SJK

The problem is that Israel doesn't respond properly to these attacks. Or do you seriously think that if Israel leveled the Hamas parliament building in retaliation, or gave an ultimatum that the IDF will level Beit Lahya after the next rocket attack, and followed up on it, there'd be any more of these? I seriously doubt that. – KettleWhistle

Where is the outrage in the UN that 18 Palestinian civilians, including children, were killed as a direct result of Palestinian leaders firing missiles into Israel every day? –CanDo.

The death of 19 at Bayt Hanun was caused by the Palestinians, of course. Incidents like that wouldn’t happen if there were no Qassams being fired. The Palestinians of Gaza would enjoy peace and serenity if they would just knock off the Qassams. Right?

Let’s take a detailed look at the time of the Gaza ‘Disengagement’ to see what was happening on the Qassam front.

I’ll take August 1 as a starting point;

August 2 - 3 Qassams
August 4 – IDF deserter shoots dead 4 Palestinians in Israel
August 5 – pre-dawn IDF raid in Gaza. Later 1 rocket fired at Gaza settlement
August 7 – IDF shoots dead 2 in Gaza after an IDF jeep was attacked.
August 8 – IDF shoot at rock-throwers in Gaza, killing 1 by-stander
August 17 – Jewish settler kills 4 Palestinians in the WB
August 22 – Return of Jewish settlers to Israel from Gaza is completed.
August 24 – IDF raid assassinates 3 Islamic Jihad (IJ) members, kills 2 and wounds 3 by-standers in the West Bank (WB).
August 25 – Qassams fired into Israel. No injuires.
August 26 – IDF raid in Gaza
August 27 – IDF raid in Gaza
August 28 – IJ suicide bomber in Beersheeba, claiming retaliation for August 24 killings, injures 8 Israelis.
August 29 – IDF soldier shot dead in Gaza
Sept 1 – IDF shoots and wounds 2 in Gaza
Sept 6 – IDF kill one stone-thrower in Gaza. 2 rockets fired, no injuries.
Sept 7 – IDF shoots and kills 1 Palestinian entering a vacated settlement in Gaza.
Sept 9 –IDF shoots and wounds 1 Palestinian in Gaza
Sept 12 – IDF leave Gaza
Sept 22 – IDF kills 1 Palestinian teenager entering the abandoned Dotan base in the WB
Sept 23 – IDF kills 4 IJ members in overnight raid on the WB. In the afternoon, IJ fire 13 Qassams at Sederot. No injuries.
Sept 24 – another 30 Qassams fired from Gaza. 5 Israelis wounded. IDF missile strikes and bombings in Gaza. Sharon approves “Operation Fist Rains” – artillery, air-strikes, bombing and assassinations in the Gaza Strip.
Sept 25 – IDF bombs homes, a school and a cultural centre in Gaza. No injuries.
2 hourly sonic booms over Gaza and artillery shelling throughout the day.
F-16 fires a missile at a car, killing 2 IJ members and injuring 7 by-standers.
A later assassination attempt injures 17 by-standers.
A newspaper story on this day reported that in 2001, IDF Chief-of-Staff Shaul Mofaz called for the Palestinians to pay a ‘price’, suggesting that the IDF should try to kill 70 Palestinians a day.
Sept 26 – 3 IDF missile strikes. 1 Qassam.
Sept 27 – overnight F-16 missile strike, artillery shelling in Gaza and several arrests in the WB. Several Qassams fired into Israel.
IJ vow revenge for Sept 25 assassination.
Sept 28 – overnight missile attacks in Gaza.
Sept 29 – IDF kill 2 IJ members in overnight raids in WB. 2 mortars fired at IDF post on the Gaza border. Later IDF kill another 2 IJ members.
Sept 30 – IDF kill 13 yr old boy in WB.
Oct 5 – IDF bulldozers clear land inside Gaza
Oct 9 – IDF kills one in WB, 3 in Gaza.
Oct 24 – IDF kills 2 IJ members in the WB. Hours later 5 Qassams fired into Israel. IDF bomb and Gaza from land, sea and air.
Oct 25 – IDF bomb IJ buildings in Gaza, injuring 5.
Oct 26 – 2 Qassams fired into Israel. IDF respond with 12 artillery shells.
IJ suicide bomber, claiming retaliation for the Oct 24 assassinations kills 5 Israelis. Another Qassam is launched and a mortar is fired at the IDF post on the Gaza border.
Sharon announces “Operation Starting All Over Again”, targeting Gaza and including further assassinations, like the ones that provoked the Qassams and the suicide bombing.
Oct 27 –IDF bomb Gaza
Oct 28 – Rockets fired into Israel. Drone fires a missile at the car that fired them, killing one. 2 more Qassams are fired.
Oct 29 – 12 air-strikes in Gaza cuts electricity to thousands of homes. Qassams lauched, IDF bombs the launch sites. No injuries reported on either side (unless you use the Israeli method of assessing injuries – people suffering shock from a Qassam strike are reported as ‘injured’, in which case the Palestinian injuries for the day are about 1.5 million, as Israeli jets continuously fly over Gaza producing ‘sonic booms’).
Oct 30 – IJ announces it will cease all Qassam attacks from Gaza if Israel stops assassinating it’s members. Hours later the IDF kills 3 IJ members in the WB and wounds 7 by-standers. IJ responses with 2 Qassams launched from Gaza.

I don’t know about you, but I see a pattern. Long periods of no activity punctuated by Israeli assassinations, quickly followed by Qassams, which over this 12 week period injured a total of 5 Israelis.

Even this doesn’t convey the sheer scale of the Israeli shelling and missile attacks. This article from Electronic Intifiada, looking at this years data, shows the massive imbalance between Palestinian Qassam attacks and Israeli shelling and bombing.

And this highlights why the latest announcement of a Gaza ceasefire won't hold. Treating Gaza as a seperate entity from the West Bank is a mistake, only a total ceasefire has any chance. As this example demonstrated, Palestinians in Gaza respond to events in the West Bank. But this is the position Israel wants to promote. That having left Gaza, the occupation is over, and that events in the West Bank are a seperate matter. Hence the oft repeated line from Israels official spokespeople and its supporters - 'see, we ended the occupation of Gaza and look what they do'.

There is no partial ending of an occupation. Either it's over completely or it's not over at all.

The Ethnic State: "kill everyone in the way"

2006-11-24T23:00:00.000+09:30

The great thing about listening in to the fanatical Zionists chatter amongst themselves is that they often tell you what they actually believe. No ‘hasbara’, or earnest avowals of their ' yearning for peace'.

Like in this example, where one of the senior fanatics at IsraelForum gives us the low down on what Zionism really means to him,

There is no giving up on Israel as the Jewish state. If that means war, and having to kill everyone in the way, then so be it. – MGB8

Avigdor Lieberman: "a classical ....Leftist"!

2006-11-09T23:05:00.000+09:30

The leader of Israels Yisrael Beiteinu party, Avigdor Lieberman, has been in the news due to his recent inclusion in the Israeli coalition government. Lieberman is a controversial figure, with his advocacy of the idea of ‘transfer’, AKA ethnic cleansing. This isn’t exactly a new idea as it was the core idea of various other Israeli politicians such as Meir Kahane and Rehavam Zeevi. But Lieberman has added his own touch of insane originality to the position with his advocacy of other fascinating ideas such as drowning all Palestinian prisoners, bombing the Aswan Dam in Egypt, executing Arab-Israeli MKs, bombing all Palestinian fuel stations, shopping centres and the like, and now advocates turning Gaza into another Chechnya (and maybe they decided to take his advice after all).

I think everyone agrees that he is a man of extreme views.

Did I say everyone? No, not everyone.

Many of our forum fanatics think he’s just great,

Anyone who opposes the defeated, corrupt, anti-Zionist government of Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz should be encouraged with the rise of Avigdor Lieberman
– Newsguy

Though apparently he is a little too starry-eyed,

Lieberman's plan is not realistic. His plant calls for a negociated agreement between Israel and the Arabs. That's not going to happen. Certainly not with Hamas in power. The best we can hope for is a civil war among the "Palestinians," which would kill off most of the current leadership…………
– Kettlewhistle.

Who goes on to make this astounding assertion about Liebermans political leanings,

Although he is a classical, as opposed to a modern, Leftist, he is a Zionist….

As incredible as it seems, I’ve discovered that not only do our forum fanatics think Lieberman is just fine, here’s one who thinks his views are too accommodating. What can you say to this?

He seems to be doing a lot of talking - and there could be a chance that he could flip-flop Ariel Sharon style…….. He proposes a transfer of land. . ……..Any proposal which promotes handing over parts of Israel to form a "Palestinian" state is not only immoral and illegal but also places the entire nation in mortal danger
- Leon

What I’ve noticed is that this kind of extreme, too-much-is-not-enough cheerleading comes not from Israeli Jews, but mostly from American Jews. Maybe it’s the ‘armchair Zionist’ syndrome? They loudly champion Zionism, but quite like their comfy lives in New York etc, and have no intention of swapping their latte sipping lifestyles for the heat and uncertainty of Tel Aviv. Hence they overcompensate out of guilt, happily cheering on Israeli excesses in the name of the Zionism that they repudiate in practice, knowing that it’s Palestinians and Israeli Jews (but mostly Palestinians) who pay the price in blood.

Orientalism 101: "The Arab mind"

2006-11-08T21:47:00.000+09:30

It’s been a while since I’ve visited the foetid swamp that is IsraelForum, being otherwise engaged with slightly more substantial subjects over the last few posts. But let’s go back and see what variety of bile has been spewing from their mouths.

On Lebanon,

Terror for terror - bomb for bomb. Where did they think this would lead? I fully support this, why don't they? Every rocket in Israel produces one random bomb strike on civilians in in Lebanon.

Vilification of Palestinians remains in vogue,

The fact is that the Palestinians, who despise their children, have a long and murderous history of sending bombs in children's backpacks.

And the terrible threat of peace with Syria, as proposed by President Assad, is met with the usual longing for peace that charaterises our insane forum fanatics,

On Avi Dichters [Israels Public Security Minister] suggestion that peace with Syria would be worth returning the Golan Heights, “Ditcher should be shot” - Kettlewhistle

And finally an insight into a mind, but not the one the writer suggests,

I guess to the arab mind that's the same thing as holding to an agreement you just made yesterday. Not being arab myself I don't have any insight into the cultural nuances of lying and being a murderous sh**thead. - Mediocrates

Camp David: Propagating the Myth

2006-10-28T23:05:00.000+09:30

Immediately after Camp David, Ehud Barak laid the blame for failure firmly at the feet of Yasser Arafat. It has since become an article of faith of the pro-Israel zealots that this is indeed the case. How did this become so widely accepted? The invaluable Daniel Dor looked at this question in his book ‘Intifada Hits the Headlines: How the Israeli Press Misreported the Outbreak of the Second Palestinian Uprising’ (published first in Hebrew under the mercifully shorter title of ‘Newspapers under the Influence’). It’s also an excellent book for a general critique of the inner workings of the so-called ‘liberal media’.

Apologies for the long excerpt, but it’s well worth the read.

After long years of floundering between interim agreements, with occasional territorial concessions, periodic crises, and sporadic terror attacks, one Israeli PM decided to examine once for all, scientifically, whether indeed it was possible to finalise the process with a real peace agreement. This PM – Ehud Barak – cut through procedures, put an end to pattern of interim agreements, and offered Arafat a permanent status agreement on unimaginable, unprecedented, “generous” terms. How did Arafat respond to that proposal? By igniting the flames of the Intifada………Why did he do that?.........The answer to the riddle is clear and simple: Arafat was not interested in peace………..This answer to the riddle is unpleasant, disappointing, frustrating – but this is the reality. One simply has to get used to it.

This perspective was most eloquently expressed in an extensive and very influential article published by Ari Shavit in Ha’aretz’s weekend magazine on October 27, 2000. The article itself, under the title “BARAKS COPERNICAN REVOLUTION”, begins with a lengthy historical review of the defeat of the geocentric perspective lying at the heart of ancient astronomy…… “The present historical moment”, writes Shavit, is a Copernican moment – and Ehud Barak is no other than an Israeli Copernicus, since he has proven that the “autocentric” perspective of Israeli culture was no more than “a figment of our imagination; a wish; a false dream; a cock-and-bull story”;
“Two complementary assumptions were the basis for this autocentric perspective: the assumption that the Israeli occupation since 1967 lies at the heart of the conflict; and the assumption that……the solution is at hand, for it depends primarily on Israel and it’s willingness to put an end to this occupation. Thus the real historical importance of the events of October 2000 is the fact that they undermined this autocentric perspective along with its two assumptions. For the Palestinian national movements decision to land a violent attack on Israel was made just after Israel offered that same movement to put an end to the occupation, recognize a Palestinian state, retreat from 95% of the territories, and even divide Jerusalem…….In the months preceding this outburst of violence, Barak actually subjected the old peace hypothesis to a critical experiment……This is the real meaning of Barak’s term in government so far. This is Barak’s real revolution……. Now the masquerade is over…….Now we all look this cruel reality- revealed by Barak and personified by Arafat –in the eye”

Throughout October, and much later as well, it was hard to find an Israeli who would not readily accept Ari Shavit’s words. This was true not only of the political Right, who celebrated quite a victory during those days, but also of the moderate Left which at the time was going through intense conceptual stock-taking…….The simple fact, however, is that Ari Shavit’s perspective, the perspective formed by Ehud Barak’s propaganda, is completely unfounded –for two fundamental and complementary reasons. These reasons are well known throughout October; they were freely discussed by reporters and analysts, but the newspapers completely avoided any attempt to explicitly deal with them, thus helping to perpetuate Barak’s perspective in the Israel consciousness to an extent than now seems almost irrevocable.

The first point has to do with the very notion of the experiment: Ehud Barak, deeply familiar with scientific thought, was probably well aware that whoever conducts an experiment cannot participate in it – this is a completely basic scientific insight. Yet Barak obviously participated in his own experiment, and quite actively at that…….He totally ignored the need for confidence building measures; he put an end to Israel staged withdrawals from the territories, as envisaged in the Oslo process; he did not hand over any territory to the Palestinians throughout his term; he severed the deep relationships between Israeli and Palestinian peace-veterans; he authorised more building in the settlements than his right-wing predecessor Netanyahu; he humiliated Arafat and his staff from his first day in office; he never entered a process of negotiation with the Palestinians, but rather asked them to sign finalised dictates for agreements; he raised the sensitive issues of the division of Jerusalem and control of the Temple Mount without previous diplomatic groundwork; and mainly, he let it be felt all along that he thought of what he was doing was an experiment – with Arafat as his guinea pig.

Every one of these facts was reported in the newspapers during the month of October, but they always appeared in the weekend magazine sections and in section B of Ha’aretz – and they were never once mentioned in the newspapers headlines. Here are 3 examples out of many. In Yediot Ahronot’s political supplement on October 13, Sima Kadmon reports a special cabinet meeting,
“The question hovered in the air, but no one dared ask it: how did we come to this pass? Everyone knew the answer. It had to do with the personality of the person in charge of negotiations, namely, the PM. With Barak it was all or nothing. Black or white – retreat from Lebanon within a year; reach a pace agreement with the Palestinians within 15 months; a comprehensive agreement- or no agreement at all; the end of the conflict, or nothing………Barak thought he knew better. He gambled.”

That same day Chemi Shalev published a similar article in Ma’ariv’s political supplement. Shalev reports the opposition to Barak within his cabinet and says that “more than a few cabinet members are critical of the tactics he adopted, the steps he initiated and the efforts he aborted. But these are days of national rallying, of consensual defensiveness, and when the guns roar, the critics are silent”. Shalev goes on to say,
“Barak does not admit to any mistake, of course, and rightly so, as far as he is concerned. If indeed his steering was misguided, then perhaps we really didn’t have to come to this, perhaps someone else could have gotten different results with the same starting point, and then it would be impossible to say that we had no choice. Nevertheless, here is a partial list of things that could have been done differently:

a) Channelling the conflict into a situation of black and white dichotomy – agreement or conflict, with no middle ground, no shades of gray…...Barak went for the all-or-nothing approach. Not only did he fail to leave himself escape exits, he was quick to block those that others tried to open.

b) Unleashing the religious demons as a direct result of the need to discuss the holiest of holies on the way to the “end of conflict”….and the failure to prevent Ariel Sharons visit to the place…

c) Ignoring the personal dimension of the conflict; the lack of respect and the deprecation he often showed Yasser Arafat

d) The attempt to dictate, from the outset, all the rules of the game, from A to Z, including non-viable framework agreements, meaningless deadlines, and the procrastinating, patronizing attitude towards the Palestinians. First he asked for two months time for thought, then he turned up with the synergetic and simultaneous peace vision, and later he ordered the Palestinians to sit back and wait till he finished his flirt with Assad. Finally he brought them back on stage, and still complained that they were not in as much of a rush as he was.

e) Publicly and blatantly cornering Arafat in the international arena, starting with Clintons one sided speech in July…”

And finally, here is a paragraph from an article by Akiva Eldar, published on October 30, on page 3 of Ha’aretz’s section B,
“According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, Sharon does not need to join the government. Barak is doing his work better than Sharon did, and even better than Netanyahu. In the second quarter this year, there was a 51% rise in new building in the territories……All-in-all, during the first half of 2000, Baraks government has outdone the rate of the Netanyahu administration during the same term last year by 44%.”

These are not political claims raised by radicals in the opposition but facts of crucial news value…..and none of the newspapers take notice, and none of these facts ever appear in a single headline in the news pages.

This then is the first point: Barak ran his diplomatic affairs in a way that contradicted, by definition, the image of an objective experimenter testing the possibility of achieving peace…..It is certainly possible that Barak sincerely thought he was “turning every stone” on the way to peace; it is certainly possible that he thought he could put an end to the conflict with the Palestinians within fifteen months. But Barak’s private perspective was not supposed to win automatic acceptance from the newspapers – they should have examined the possibility that Barak actively contributed to the collapse of the peace process. This simply never happened.

The second point has to do with the experiments basic assumption – the assertion that the Intifada broke out , as Shavit put it, “just after Israel offered…to put an end to the occupation, recognise a Palestinian state, retreat from 95% of the territories, and even divide Jerusalem”.

What was the origin of this assertion? Did anyone know for a fact that Israel had indeed offered to put an end to the occupation, withdraw from 95% of the territories, and divide Jerusalem? It is indeed true that Barak told the journalists from time to time, but the fact is that throughout the month, and later as well, the newspapers never once tried to find out what exactly it was that Barak offered the Palestinians- not what Barak said he had offered, but what he had actually offered. Where exactly was the border supposed to lie? Which settlements were supposed to remain, and which were supposed to be evacuated? Did he, for instance, offer to dismantle the settlements in Kiryat Arba, a constant locus of friction with Palestinians in Hebron? And if not, in what sense did he offer to “put an end to occupation”? How many Palestinians were supposed to remain under Israeli sovereignty? How many seprate territories was the PA meant to be divided into as part of this agreement?……..

Such an examination could and should have also included real research into the Palestinian positions, publication of the maps Barak used (if indeed there were any) etc. Yet no such research was conducted, and the discussion about Arafat’s political intransigence was exclusively based on Barak’s suggestions. Consider, for instance the following…..published [in November] in section B of Ha’aretz,
“Almost everyone in the political establishment now understands that peace, as well as this government, will stand or fall on the ‘Camp David understandings’ of July 2000. Almost no one knows what these understandings were. No one saw the document summing up these understandings, since there is no such document. Experienced diplomats cannot recall diplomatic talks of these kinds whose content was not written down.

Ehud Barak’s version about turning every stone on the way to a peace agreement with the Palestinians was engraved in the public consciousness to such a degree that no one demands that he prove what he says…….The maps presenting Barak’s vision of the borders of the permanent status agreement were never revealed – not to the Palestinians, not to the Israeli public, not to cabinet members………When the impasse leads to fresh graves, the PM must stand up and present his proposal in full detail, so as to convince us that this is indeed a necessary war.”

The task of exposing his proposals fell of course to the media – the so-called watchdogs of democracy – but the papers preferred to keep their distance, and were content with stating that Barak did indeed “turn every stone” on his way to peace, and that Arafat had lost his sanity and was dragging the region to another war.

This version of events fits neatly within the view that Israel bears no responsibility for events. And the importance of this, is its corollary; if the situation is unrelated to Israel’s past actions, then there is no need for Israel to alter its policy and behaviour towards the Palestinians, as there will be no effect from such a change.

One manifestation of this is the oft heard lament “there is no partner for peace”. Which is little more than an excuse. Whenever you hear this, just remember, it’s a desperate cry for Israel to be absolved of any responsibility for its actions.

Myths: Camp David and the “Generous Offer”

2006-10-04T19:03:00.000+09:30

It’s time to look at another of the favourite myths that are the bread and butter of IsraelForum.com.

This is the general thrust of it from our deluded Forum fanatics;

The single most generous offer by Israel to the Palestinian leadership since Rabin’s promise in l967 was the “second Camp David” meeting in July, 2000, where Ehud Baraq made his historic offer of 97% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and a PA capitol in East Jerusalem, in return for an end to the conflict. To quote Tom Friedman, Israel extended the olive branch and Arafat torched it.

The real Camp David story is an especially interesting one, as it marks a break and a new phase of the conflict with regard to Israels approach to settling matters in it’s favour. While there is general continuity with some elements of Oslo, what marks Israeli PM Baraks’ approach as different, was his stated stand of a achieving final status agreements on all outstanding matters in one go. Baraks election campaign was based on his assertion that he, and he alone, could negotiate a final peace agreement Israels neighbours. His initial strategy was the Syrian track, but he baulked at continuing this Syrian track when he came to the realisation that peace could only be achieved in exchange for the Golan Heights., ie in accordance with UN Res 242.

Barak instead turned his attention, and his rapidly diminishing time, towards settling the conflict with the Palestinians. Adding to the sense of urgency for Barak, was that he understood that delivering on his promises of peace was his best chance of winning the elections against a resurgent Ariel Sharon. Again, it was Baraks contention that only he could achieve this, because of his special ‘understanding’ of the Palestinians. As events show, it was his complete lack of understanding of the realities of the Palestinian position that, in part, lead to the failure of Camp David.

Simultaneously another leader, Bill Clinton, was nearing the end of his term as US President, and was looking for a nice ‘legacy’ for his retirement mantelpiece – a final settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Initial US efforts to get Barak and Arafat together were difficult as Arafat contended that Palestinian negotiators were not yet ready and that a premature effort to negotiate would only gaurentee failure. The US and Israel pushed for the negotiations to begin, no doubt with much more thought given to the timing in relation to their respective political ambitions, than to the chances for a successful outcome. To overcome Arafats continued objections to the timing, Clinton personally guaranteed Arafat that he would not be blamed for any failure of the talks.

And so in July 2000 they began. It’s best to quote Robert Malley who was a member of the US team at Camp David, on the vague nature of the negotiations that later came to be described as an “offer”, in attempts to vilify Arafat and place all blame on the Palestinians,

The final and largely unnoticed consequence of Barak's approach is that, strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel's position in the event of failure, and resolved not to let the Palestinians take advantage of one-sided compromises, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal. The ideas put forward at Camp David were never stated in writing, but orally conveyed. They generally were presented as US concepts, not Israeli ones; indeed, despite having demanded the opportunity to negotiate face to face with Arafat, Barak refused to hold any substantive meeting with him at Camp David out of fear that the Palestinian leader would seek to put Israeli concessions on the record. Nor were the proposals detailed. If written down, the American ideas at Camp David would have covered no more than a few pages. Barak and the Americans insisted that Arafat accept them as general ‘bases for negotiations’ before launching into more rigorous negotiations.

As Malley pointed out there were no written offers, no maps presenting exactly what it was that Israeli claimed to have offered. Here are a few examples that are the best guesses that can be made as to what Israels ideas looked like on a map.

This is one opinion, and another from Dennis Ross's book on Camp David. Ross’s map fails to include most of the 10% of the West Bank that Israeli wanted to keep under ‘temporary’ Israeli control along the border with Jordan. This is the Gush Shalom view and another from Ron Punduk from the Peres Centre for Peace (PDF file – map on last page) and finally a map of the December 2000 'Clinton Plan' from the Foundation for Middle East Peace (PDF).

This just goes to show the reality of Camp David - the proposals were so vague that it is diffifcult to reach agreement on what they actually were.

One of the most outlandish claims made of the so-called generous offer, is that Israel was prepared to cede East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. As this has long been a Palestinian demand, this appears to back up the “generous offer” claims. In reality, the Israeli position at Camp David did not suggest ceding control of the area of annexed East Jerusalem. The Palestinians would be given sovereignty over the Christian and Muslim quarters of the old city and certain other Arab neighbourhoods. The extensively enlarged municipal limits as claimed by Israel in it’s 1980 annexation, would appear to have remained under Israeli control, and Israel had no intention of removing any of the illegal 200,000 Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem. In effect, East Jerusalem would remain significantly Israeli. This map shows the fiction of a Palestinian East Jerusalem under Baraks "generous offer".

Barak’s position was that Israel would keep the major settlement blocks in the West Bank, but there would be an exchange of land. And the generous part is that the land exchange would be at a roughly 9:1 ratio. That is, for each 9 dunams of land Israel proposed to keep in the West Bank, it would give the Palestinians 1 dunam in Israel. And that land area in Israel was almost certain to be the so-called ‘triangle’, an area of land on the West Bank border that has the highest concentrations of Palestinian-Israelis inside Israel. It was long been an aspiration to rid Israel of this particular ‘demographic threat’.

The myth goes that Israel offered 96% of the West Bank to Arafat. Leaving aside the fact that justice isn’t simple arithmetic, the claim itself is false. The areas of East Jersulam that Israel wanted to keep are simply left out of this calculation- they were not negotiable. What ever percentage figure one chooses to refer to, is the area Israel was prepared to negotiate over, which doesn’t include those parts that Israel had already decided belonged to it.

Another frequently referred to text in the “generous offer” myth is Dennis Ross’s book ‘The Missing Peace’. His book and frequent articles have lent credence to the idea that Israelis made an offer and it was generous. It’s best described as 800 pages of self-congratulation. Ross’s contention is based on a time limited perspective. The “generous offer” myth is based on the reality that Barak went further than any other Israeli in negotiations with the Palestinians. But this says far more about the reluctance of his predecessors, than about Baraks fabled generosity. And it is the subsequent Taba talks, 6 months later, that further expose Ross and the whole “generous offer” myth. In Taba, Israel moved closer to what Palestinians saw as the minimum acceptable offer. Israel dropped its demand for control of the Jordan valley and control of all external borders and accepted greater Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem. These facts show that while Barak had gone further at Camp David than any previous Israeli leader, it was completely false to contend that; he “had left no stone unturned” as was repeatedly claimed, and that the vague proposals were anything approaching “generous”. Indeed, the subsequent developements at Taba show that Arafat, while suffering his own serious negotiating flaws, would have made a grave error if he were to have accepted Baraks "offer " at Camp David.

The idea of generosity in this context is turned completely on its head; Israel was not giving to the Palestinians from itself, but was simply returning to the Palestinians what was theirs. That returning only part of what is not yours, instead of all, can be construed as generosity, tells one a great deal about the prevailing dogmas on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Fighting Terrorism: "target more Palestinian civilians"

2006-09-21T23:01:00.000+09:30

A much loved topic of the Forum fanatics. Naturally they have a somewhat narrow interpretation of what terrorism is – basically anything Palestinians might do to resist Israeli occupation. In fact, even just living in the same geographical space as other alleged terrorists in enough to qualify for punishment according to our fanatics,

Since the pal civilian population is harboring the criminal terrorists, who violated the Geneva Conventions by crossing an internationally-recognized border from Gaza into Israel, why SHOULDN'T they be made to suffer for their choice of terrorism rather than reconciliation?

Of course, Israel should deliberately target the Palestinian civilian population to make them change their behaviour…..uh, isn’t that terrorism?

As you can see while the IsraelForum crowd is extreme, they aren’t especially well informed. Israel adopted the collective punishment policy decades ago.

And Israel’s current brutality in fighting ‘terrorism’ is, in their opinion, highly flawed. Why? – because it isn’t brutal enough!

I wish Israel would target more Palestinian civilians. When a rocket is aimed at Israel, I wish the IDF would send 100 rockets back. Sooner or later these Palestinian Arabs would learn that the price for terrorism is too high. I want a new policy of 100 rockets into Gaza for every Arab rocket aimed at Israel!

More confusion – this has also long been Israeli policy!

Someone has a novel solution to the problem of the IDF killing so many Palestinian children,

It is obvious that Hamas uses Palestinian civilians, especially children, as unsuspecting martyrs, for propaganda use against Israel. The IDF returns fire, and PRESTO, Palestinian children wind up dead, where there weren't any before. These depraved, subhuman acts by Palestinian fighters should surprise no one.If the IDF would do sustained shelling for any attacks against Israel, sooner or later Hamas would run out of Palestinian children to kill.

That’s right - Kill them all, so then no more can be killed.

It’s hard to believe they actually post this vile garbage, but it’s interesting to see what the crazy pro-Israel bigots will say when they think they’re talking to the like-minded.

IsraelForum.com; 24 hr Vilification, Apologetics and Hate.

2006-09-15T06:56:00.000+09:30

Here's a quick review of the IsraelForum contribution to peace and understanding in the Middle East.

Vilification.
Palestinians hate their children. They are not like ‘us’.

It is an example of Pal Arab culture, and what they teach their children. From pointing toy guns it quickly becomes throwning stones, then maybe firebombs (while both providing coverage for older boys or young men with real guns ... and if there are people with toy guns and people with real guns and you are recieving fire from that area, imagine the probability increase that the child with the toy gun gets hit, and the sheer evil of the terrorists who exploit this) and scouting ahead for terrorists cells, to, by the time the boys are still 15, 16, 17, using guns and taking parts in the attempted murders themselves. That is the Pal Arab way. That is how they use their children

And not only do they recklessly risk the life of their children, these non-humans deliberately murder them, just to make Israel look bad,

In this case, depraved Palestinian gunmen murdered six young children in order to blame it on Israel. This happens all the time. Hamas and the other violent, criminally insane, inhuman gangs would kill hundreds of thousands of their fellow Arabs if Hamas could get it's financial and political gains.It is a good tactic, and one befitting of Arabs, to murder your own young, in order to blame it on a peaceloving, civilized neighbor.

Apologetics
A large number of Palestinian children have been shot dead by the IDF over the past 6 years. Clearly, the most moral army in the world is completely blameless.

The responsbility for their deaths thus lies soley with the Adults who indoctrinate, educate, encrouage and/or force them to go out into the known war zones and not the soldier who pulls the trigger.

Hate
After Palestinian militants captured an Israeli soldier, the Forum fanatics had some interesting ideas on appropriate responses,

Hit Syria – make the animals pay

On Arab society in general, we are treated to their deep understanding of human nature.

You can't humanize a society if it doesn't want to be humanized……., a culture of violence and hate and victimhood, no political initiatives or reform, persection, racism, xenophobia.

Another lesson in humanity, tolerance and understanding from IsraelForum.com

Immunity

2006-09-12T18:43:00.000+09:30

I’ve often pondered the exact purpose of IsraelForum. I don’t mean in general terms, as it’s quite obvious that it strives to maintain a strong pro-Israel voice on the internet. The question in my mind was, how does it attempt to do this.

Israel and Israel-advocates have long recognised that the court of public opinion is an arena of vital concern. Historically, Israel has enjoyed a relatively criticism free existence in this respect. Despite the current fad that ascribes all hostility to Israel as coming from the ‘left’, prior to 1967 Israel was the darling of this same ‘left’. This began to undergo significant change after the Six Day War, when Israel became an occupying power and was further accelerated by the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the 1987 Palestinian Intifada. While world public opinion was important, public opinion in another sphere was undergoing a similar change – in the Jewish community itself. Dissident voices were increasingly Jewish voices.

A vital part of Israels’ appeal to public opinion was the phenomenon of ‘Exodus’ history.
Especially in the US, Leon Uris’s novel would provide a rough reckoning of the knowledge of many people regarding Israel and its’ creation; heroic pioneers fresh from Nazi Germany, striving to make the desert bloom in a land of swarthy and hateful Arabs. This narrative was one where only the new Israeli Jews had a voice. Palestinians were at best a backdrop, part of the scenery, at worst, they didn’t even exist, as Golda Meir asserted. However, events of the past few decades raise questions and introduce doubts into the mythological narrative of Zionism.

IsraelForum is an attempt to reinforce that mythology which is in danger of being exposed to new truths and a compelling Palestinian narrative that is also one of dispossession and injustice. The target is primarily those who still remain loyal, at least partly, to the myths and the aim is to keep them there, protected from uncomfortable truths.

Hence, the forum continually recycles the same ideas; Palestinian otherness, Jewish right to the land, the moral IDF, Israeli striving for peace, Jewish victimhood, the historical justice of Israel, claimed recentness of Palestinian immigration etc. All reinforcing the basic tenants of an ‘Exodus’ style mythological history, while at the same time dehumanising Palestinians and deligitimising the Palestinian narrative. So insecure is the Zionist mythology that it can tolerate no competition.

The idea being, that if that narrative is sufficiently well instilled, it will be impervious to other narratives that clash or compete with it, just as the bodies immune system will identify and reject foreign bodies.

Jewish voices of dissent are particularly threatening. But it doesn’t matter if a small number remain outside the fold, in fact they can be held up as aberrations, anomalies on the fringes which can actually reinforce the dominant narrative. The principle of herd immunity means that as long as a sufficiently high percentage are immune, a disease/virus will not spread easily despite some members of the herd being susceptible. And undoubtedly, the Palestinian story is seen as a dangerous virus by the pro-Israel zealots, one that has to be guarded against. And the best way to do this is to portray their story solely through the lens of terrorism, of a violent and fanatical people who kill without reason, or from blind hate.

So IsraelForum isn’t just a crude propaganda site, which it is, it is also a location for a community to maintain and strengthen a shared outlook, to indoctrinate against a perceived threat, to instill immunity against a foreign invader. IsraelForum is an innoculation against the notion of Palestinian humanity.

A Just Peace: "kick all the arabs out"

2006-09-09T20:55:00.000+09:30

IsraelFroum has a thread section, titled ‚ 'Peace Think Tank' which is, not surprisingly, one of the quietest in terms of posting. So what do the Forum fanatics see as a peaceful solution to the conflict? Here are a few examples from a thread titled “A ‘Just Peace’ or a Practical Durable Peace?”,

There is only one truly just solution: for Israel to kick all the Arabs out of Israel and the disputed territories. This is the only just and moral solution that will bring about a true peace.

Ah, ethnic cleansing. What a curious understanding of just peace they have! Or maybe they have confused "peace" with "piece", as in a piece of land. They don't want a just peace, but just a piece, ie the entire West Bank. As God ordained, no doubt.

Because this is what the whole conflict is about--it is a matter of Arab colonists wanting to take over our native land. Sending them back home, to their own countries is the only truly just solution.

An all-time favourite of the fanatics – Palestinians are occupying land that belongs to Israel, and of course to any Jewish person anywhere in the world who would like to ‘make aliyah’. If only those Palestinians would go back to ‘their country’ everything would be OK.

A ‘moderate’ (relatively speaking) responded to this idea,

from the Israeli point of view it would be: "biting the bullet", making a difficult decision and attempting to solve the problem once and for all! However, IMO, even most Israelis would not consider such a solution to be just, at least not at this time.

Yes, my sympathies too would lie with Israel in having to make this hard decision. The people at the pointy end of this? – as usual the untermensch don’t figure much in the fanatics thinking.

A new member, self-described as a Palestinian, jumps in at this point and makes the stunning suggestion that a just peace might be achieved by actually implementing the internationally recognised solution, ie a return to ’67 borders, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and removal of the illegal Jewish settlements. Which results in the following outraged response,

hope all of you leftist peacenik Israelis in here get a good look, a long hard look at this post and see the face of Palestinian Ungratefulness and Denial exhibited above in this post. You gave, gave, gave,expelled your own people, put "peace" above all else, and this is what you get back: more threats, more demands, not even a a glimpse of gratefulness or understanding.

Ahh, the ingratitude! 40 years of land theft, expulsions, torture, killing and repression, and those damned Palestinians still aren’t grateful! They still “demand” the return of their own land. Can you believe it?!

After that brief interlude, the IsraelForum peace talks continued,

Removing the Arab population to their own native lands is just from the impartial historical perspective--this is where they truly belong, and where they can live among their own people, in their own ways.

As the saying goes, "no Arabs=no terrorism."

Yes, let's put the Palestinians "where they truly belong" - somewhere else, so the Israelis can just get on with longing for peace.

Killing: A “Golden Opportunity”

2006-08-23T21:45:00.000+09:30

While the battles rage on in Lebanon, Israel has a golden opportunity to rid itself of the Palestinian terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank. In fact, Israel seems to be doing just that, with nearly 200 terrorists dead in the past few weeks since the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. That’s a huge accomplishment, especially considering that it is being done without much fanfare……. Israel should seize the day and lift all restraints on eliminating the rank and file of the Palestinian terror machine. It’s not every day that Israel gets such an opportunity.

This is the view of the head-fanatic at Israel Forum, a certain Michael Rand.
My first thought was; is anyone stupid enough to put their real name to an incitement to murder like this one? Maybe Michael Rand is real, who knows, all I know is that this is a sentiment that appears to reflect the reality of the situation.

Standard Forum practice is to invoke loaded terminology to hide the hideous reality of what they espouse. In this case it's their all-time favourite – terrorists. Those killed are terrorists, “200 dead terrorists”. The formula is that any dead Palestinian was a terrorist. It's some kind of magical transformation that is very convenient. But is it true?

Lets take a peek behind the façade and see who are these people Israel has “rid itself of”. Rand’s rant was on the 14th, so let's look back at the reports, starting from that day.

Israeli bombing hit a group of farmers near the town's agricultural school. Medical sources at the Kamal 'Odwan Hospital said that Othman Hassan Alba, 55, Zuhair Shehada Al Kafarneh, 50 and Ahmad Ashour Al Kafarneh, 17 were killed in the Israeli air strike.-Aug 14

16-year-old Palestinian Nahed Shinbari, killed when a tank shell struck near his home-Aug 12

Palestinian medical sources and eyewitnesses report that Wednesday night Israeli warplanes fired missiles in northern Gaza City, killing a two year old girl, two Palestinian armed resistance members and injuring three more Palestinians- Aug 10
Two missiles hit the center for Humanitarian Affairs of the Palestinian National Liberation Movement "Fatah", killing a Palestinian refugee and wounding six others- Aug 9

An Israeli tank shell hit a house in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip early yesterday, injuring a three-month-old Palestinian baby and a 25-year-old man, hospital officials said.-Aug 9

Israeli settlers opened fire on 48 year old Husein Mardawi and his 19 year old son Dean. The settlers killed the father and injured his son.-Aug 7

Israeli air strikes killed five Palestinians, including two militants, in southern Gaza on Saturday –Aug 5

Israeli troops have raided southern Gaza, killing 7 Palestinians, including a child, in the latest stage of their month-long offensive-Aug 3

An Israeli tank shell has killed a 16-yr-old Palestinian civilian in Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza, Palestinian emergency services said-July 31

at approximately 1:00am, tens of IOF tanks entered the northern Gaza Strip under helicopter cover, and stationed themselves near a petrol situation, subsequently moving to the southern districts and reaching Sha'af Street, where they began to shell houses with tank missiles. 11 Palestinians were killed during this offensive, including: Mohammed Adas, 22 Yaser Banat, 23 Salama Al So'ody, 45 Sabah Habib, 3 Yehia Al So'ody, 30 Husam Al So'ody, 25 Saleh Hasanein, 23 Hamed Herzallah, 25. The 3 others killed in the attack remain unidentified. 55 Palestinians were wounded, including Ibrahim Al Atla, a photojournalist for Palestine Satellite TV.- July 26

But all this isn't enough to satisfy the blood-lust at IsraelForum. Rand says Israel should "sieze the day" and loosen its, far from obvious, "restraints".

Afterall, it's a “golden opportunity” to slaughter with impunity.

Al-Qaeda at IsraelForum

2006-08-20T23:05:00.000+09:30

In 2002, Osama bin Laden made a statement where he dismissed the notion of innocent civilians in the US, on the basis that being participants in a democracy they are responsible for the acts of their Government. In the NYT, Noah Feldman described this notion as “perverse” and “morally outrageous”. This is the essence of bin Ladens’ claim,

You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offences in which they did not partake:

This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. …………….The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, ………. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

Surely the strident opponents of terrorism at IsraelForum would also reject such perversity?

On Hamas,

the problem comes when policies to that effect are implemented, and violence is generated as a result. Once that happens, it is fully within Israel's right to react as it sees fit.

The parents of these 12 innocents or these 12 themselves voted for hamas. They got what they voted for.

On Hizballah,

I see the citizens and government of Lebanon at best passive participants and at worst active participants and thus either guilty by inaction or guilty of action, but guilty none the less.

Not wasting time on analogies here, lebanon is responsible for attacks that emanate from its sovereign territory. End of story.

Looks like our forum fanatics are in agreement with the approach of Osama bin Laden. This won’t came as a surprise to anyone who takes careful note of pro-Israeli apologetics.

Though forum members are capable of moments of lucid thought, at least when the object of their ruminations is the official enemy. A forum member had this to say about bin Ladens’ logic,

Madness is often based on solid logic. The moment you swallow the outlandish basic premises of a madman's worldview, his actions will become amazingly rational.

That does sum up the fanatical pro-Israeli supporters quite well – accepting the "madmans worldview"; only Israel has right of self-defence and has rights that are superior to anyone else – Israeli actions are therefore “amazingly rational”. And supremely moral, as they never cease to assert.

Selective Outrage

2006-08-18T01:12:00.000+09:30

The herd at IsraelForum are deeply concerned over the death of innocent civilians. Just look at the outpourings of sympathy/grief/rage over the death, or even endangerment, of Israelis from Palestinian terrorism.

one must seriously question whether the new Israeli government has gone mad in expecting people to just go about their daily lives while Palestinian rockets continue to rain down, killing children, destroying houses, schools and synagogues with no end in sight.

Another hearbreaking attack by savages.

The attacks continue to prove that Pals are nothing more than savages who want terror

Consequences should be established for every death of an Israeli

7 mortar shells fell on Gaza today. The world is silent, I suppose, because no Jews were killed and therefore there is little opportunity to alternately cheer and blame the victims.

casualty figure revised according to channel 2: 27 people injured, most suffer from light injuries except one who is in serious condition

Being such fine upstanding individuals, they must be deeply distressed by the deaths of over 1000 Lebanese civilians. How could it be otherwise when they have such noble sentiments on the subject.

lebanon should have been carpetbombed like dresden instead of sacrificing these young guys

All armies……..aim to disrupt the communications and the supply lines of the opposing forces. The IDF too has had to do this in order to soften up the resistence of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah aggression is responsible the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese

Hizbullah wanted a war and it got itself one; unfortunately the rest of the country went down with it. Well, who cares.

I say go for it - let the whole country disintegrate and fail. Let the 'Lebanese Army' try to stop Hezbollah and have the whole thing erupt into a civil war. That suits me fine. Let them go all the way down to cannibalism.

Hezbollah is the enemy and lebanese are helping them. Hezbollah has to be taken out and lebanese civilians are casualities of war.

They are a bunch of terrorists and must be taken out completely no POW no trial just kill them then and there. Of course anyone guilty of hiding/assisting a terrorist is also culpable and hence lebanese civilians (shias) are fair game? Don't you agree?

Oops. Something’s gone wrong. How could it change all so quickly? A forum regular has this to say about Lebanese people (and we can assume it applies doubly so to Palestinians),

You're animals and savages and we expect no better of you.

Such a shining example of what the forum fanatics refer to as ‘moral clarity’!

The Anti-Semitic ICRC

2006-08-12T09:12:00.000+09:30

Uncovering anti-semitism is a major task at IsraelForum. An entire section is devoted to this vital task. Now they have found it, of all places, at the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The Jerusalem Post provides the vital clues for the Forum fanatics,

International Committee of the Red Cross President Dr. Jakob Kellenberger devoted the vast majority of a Jerusalem press conference Thursday to Lebanese civilian suffering and little to that of Israelis under attack by Hizbullah.

At the press conference, held at the American Colony Hotel in eastern Jerusalem and attended almost entirely by foreign correspondents, the Swiss national spoke extensively and with emotion about the deaths, injuries and lack of food and water among the Lebanese population, but did not mention the fact that the war was started on July 12 by the Iranian-trained Hizbullah militia, which killed eight soldiers in a cross-border attack, abducted two others and rained rockets on northern Israel.

I have a wild suggestion to make here. Is it just possible that the vast majority of civilian suffering is being done by Lebanese civilians? Let’s see, in southern Lebanon they have little access to food and medical supplies, no electricity, the IDF has promised to bomb any vehicle on the streets, so people can’t leave and the Red Cross is having great difficulty getting in, and up to 1,000,000 people are displaced from their homes. In northern Israel, people have bomb shelters, food and water, electricity, full medical services, all roads and bridges are open, and Israeli civilians can be evacuated south by air-conditioned buses without threat of being bombed off the road. Though I have heard that Israeli civilians are being keep awake by the noise from the IDFs constant shelling and bombing raids.

The evil ICRC also have made suggestions in the realm of arithmetic, that appear to be anti-semitic.

He added, however, that "over 1,000 civilians have died in southern Lebanon," hinting that it was a significantly larger toll compared to the 40 civilians plus more than 80 Israeli soldiers who have died.

Really? On what basis can the ICRC hint that 1000 is more than 40. The nerve!

And how do our forum fiends react to the enormous civilian suffering in Lebanon (granted that it doesn’t match that of Israels poor civilians),

Enemy's population not getting sufficient medical help? I call that good news.

Yeah, it's always good when it's "them" who are dying.

Qana: “their own fault”

2006-08-07T18:59:00.000+09:30

Daniel Dor laid out the basic categories into which fall most apologetics for Israels actions.

I picked out a small sample of the endless excuse-making that can be found at IsraelForum on the topic of the Qana bombing, and you can see how they fit into Dors classification;

1. Counter-blaming (the other side is guilty, therefore I am not)

It should be of no surprise - that Hizb'Allah would plan, detonate and destroy a building filled with innocent civilains.

They are casualties of their own fault; their state could not uphold its own laws

I don’t think it is a big stretch to think that Hezbollah fighters would sacrifice some crippled children to further the noble goal of punishing the Zionists.

…….civilians are dying on both sides because terrorists are putting them in harms way.

Israel too kills civilians but that's a byproduct of their actions against the terrorists who bear the real responsibility……

2. Disqualifying the source of the blame (they have no right to judge me)

After the Qana attack, the entire world was disturbed and came to a halt. As if this was an unprecedented tragedy. The reaction is selective outrage, as the world doesn't react with the same emotions to terror by Hezbollah and other Arab groups!

3. Blurring intention (I did not mean to do that, it happened by mistake)

people CAN leave, but the fact that Hezbollah intermingles with them isn't the IDF's fault. It is part of Hezbollah's strategy of keeping civilians in the area as shields.

israel has every right to attack when being attacked!, yes ofcource civilen will die when militants use lebanons city's around lebanon as there armybase or battleground

……a tragic accident in war. You know, armies do make mistakes……

……a tragic accident of war.

4. Coercion (I was forced to do what I did).

The entire northern part of Israel is not functioning at this point …………We can’t survive like that. We have NO choice.

Israel has tried everything. Negotiations, peace for land offers, unilateral withdrawals but it seems that all it's efforts are to no avail.

These categories apply to all pro-Israeli apologetics, no mater what the event. The Intifada, the Six Day War, you name it, they are an all-purpose range of tactics with the same purpose – to absolve Israel of blame for its action. Following on from this, Israel bears no responsibility for events and so no change in behaviour, on its part, is required.

But it also answers a question I have long pondered; do Israels' apologists truly believe the lame rubbish they spout?

According to Dors’ theory the answer is, no. If guilt is the motivating factor, then what creates guilt is an internal acceptance of wrong doing. Hence, even as these apologetics represent an attempt to suppress guilt they are an acknowledgment that the criticisms of Israeli actions are justified.

The Suppression of Guilt - Part 2

2006-08-04T00:23:00.000+09:30

Dor continues to examine the Israeli media coverage of the 2002 re-occupation of the West Bank.

How then, does the obsession with guilt translate into a worldview?.....Well, as we shall see in this chapter, the common denominator, the foundational basis, lies in the portrayal of Israel – its government, its military, its people – as an agent without intentions, an innocent society that has been pushed into the operation…….by the sheer force of Palestinian violence, with no agenda of it’s own except self-defense……..
The most remarkable feature…….is that none of these commentators ever raises, or even hints at, the possibility that Sharon actually knows very well what he is doing, that he does have a plan, and that he is not particularly bothered by the fact that the military operation will not lead the parties back to the negotiating table. In other words, the media never formulate the alternative interpretation: that Sharon has not been passively pushed into this action…..
Is this alternative interpretation necessarily true? Not at all. But the reporters working for the five media institutions consistently brought in materials which strongly suggested that this interpretation may actually be closer to reality. These materials, however, were systematically published, or broadcast, in a way that amounted to suppression.

The Israeli media suppresses any idea of political intent, but also reports the actual conduct of the IDF in the territories in a similar manner.

This is most clearly reflected in the coverage of 2 topics, which from the point of view of the international press, were thought of as indicative of Israel’s long-term intentions: the IDF attack on the Bituniya headquarters of Jibril Rajoub, the head of the PA preventative security in the West Bank, and the damage caused by the IDF to the civic infrastructure of the PA.
Senior officials of the IDF have also publicly admitted that he was not involved in terror-related activities…..the attack on his headquarters…was thus interpreted by some of the international press as evidence that Israel intended to destroy the PA itself……Ha’artez then, just like all the other Israeli media, bases its coverage of the attack on the IDFs formal description of the event: the headquaters were attacked because wanted individuals were found there. Ha’aretz’s main headline on April 2 simply states: ‘Siege on Wanted Individuals at Rajoub’s HeadQuarters…’
Crucially, this perspective is flatly contradicted in the commentary written by Danny Rubenstein, the papers own senior commentator on Palestinian affairs, published on April 7 in section B of the paper – away from the news pages: ‘…..The goal is the complete destruction of the Palestinian security system. This is no scoop……’.

And,

This is how one of the senior military correspondents described circumstances in an interview, ‘The atmosphere there was incensed and hot-blooded, and they did things there which should not have been done…’
These comments are significant, because none of this ever appeared in the Israeli media throughout the operation. In most reports, and, as we have seen, in all the reports highlighted by the editorial text, the soldiers are portrayed as sensitive, thoughtful, and considerate towards the Palestinian civilians…..The possible link between Sharon’s rhetorical style and the conduct is never mentioned. Consequently, and quite unbelievably, only a single report throughout the operation takes the damage inflicted on the PA civil infrastructure as its topic.

Lack of intention on the part of Israel is just one aspect of the approach, the other is to locate intention elsewhere. No prizes for guessing where.

If Israel is the passive entity, dragged into a war against its will, then the Palestinians are always crystal clear about their goals, these goals are always totally evil……this perspective is most dramatically reflected in the portrayal of Yasser Arafat……….
Dozens of items through out the month focus on Arafat, and they all tell the story of a larger-than-life enemy: evil, murderous, cunning, subtle, determined, invincible. He is always in full control of the events in the territories……..
This then is the crux of the analytical perspective projected by all the media: the entire Israel-Palestine conflict, in all its incredible complexity, depends entirely on the individual personality of Yasser Arafat……None of the media ever attempts to question it, and once the ID enters the muqata’a they all full-heartedly participate in the incrimination: if Arafat is guilty, then we are innocent.

Proving Arafats intentions became a focus of both the IDF and the Israeli media. Much was made of documents which claimed to prove that Arafat was financing terror attacks.

Whenever some sort of ‘proof’ was found for Arafats involvement in terror, the finding was reported as no less than a victory. The IDF produced press releases, organized displays and press conferences- and the media published and broadcast as much of this as possible. Throughout the period only two writers…. took the trouble to critically examine the ‘proofs’ supplied and displayed by the IDF……
Here is....a paragraph...from April 26: ‘Was the Tanzims terror activity financed by the Authority? According to the [IDF] commentary, yes. According to the documents, no. All the ‘financing documents' are in fact a collection of bitter complaints about the Authority’s tight fist, and the fact that it does not provide the Tanzim with resources…..Did Arafat approve of money transfers to people involved in suicide attacks? Those who only check the pre-digested texts are led to believe this was indeed the case. But whoever reads the texts themselves will not find a trace of evidence.’….
Within this general framework, the media simply refrains from asking some of the most fundamental questions regarding the causes behind the reality of terror….the deeper casual questions having to do with the inseparable ink between the suicide attacks and the occupation……Whenever a reporter brings in important materials regarding these questions, it is buried deep in the back pages of the supplement..

Dor provides several examples of this crucial perspective that the papers own reporters produced,

…for example, correspondent Ariela Ringel-Hoffman interviews experts on terror…..One of the experts…makes the following comment: ‘The method of closures between and around cities is the root cause of all evil…..Effectively it has turned an entire population into one homogenous bloc which produces terror…’

And,

..a long article in the holiday supplement….. ‘Many people in the defense establishment now believe that Israel has played a considerable part in the fact that the Tanzim has joined the circle of suicide attacks. The assassinations of its senior members…generated a tremendous urge to respond…In private conversations, the PM and Minister of Defense have admitted that the execution Ra’ad Carmi –carried out at a time of relative calm in the OTs – was a mistake…’……
This all important piece of information does not merit a headline and does not appear in the news pages….

The effect of all this is that,

..even when senior Israeli security sources openly admit that a causal connection could be detected between Israels conduct and the continuation of terror, and even when three senior correspondents report this, this significant fact does not make it across the editorial text – and does not leave a mark in the Israeli public consciousness.

Dor develops an explanation for what he has described that goes beyond ‘manufacturing consent’. But for our purposes here, it’s enough to note that this contrives a defence against judgement, particularly from the outside; you can’t judge us, this is not our fault. That it is an issue of guilt is highlighted by the fact that blame is not the problem. In fact blame is often accentuated, but countered by shifting all responsibility elsewhere.

Anyone paying attention to Israeli politicians and spokespeople will note this consistent message in their pronouncements regarding Lebanon; not our fault, we had no choice.

I’ll look at just this framework, in relation to Qana, in the next post.

The Suppression of Guilt - Part 1

2006-07-31T14:06:00.000+09:30

There is a constant theme running through most of the apologetics by the Stalinists at IsraelForum. Should any Israeli action cross the line in terms of lawful behaviour there are 2 defences that are consistently and constantly invoked,

1. That others behaviour necessitates Israeli action. Therefore they assume all responsibility for the consequences of Israels actions.

2. That whatever occurred, was unintentional, a mistake, as Israel, by definition, can not possibly intend to act illegally or immorally.

Fortunately, a former journalist, Daniel Dor, has done an outstanding job of examining this issue in relation to the Israeli media. What follows are some short extracts from Dor’s book (‘The Suppression of Guilt’) that help us understand how Israels defenders try to deflect blame and what drives them to do so.

The suppression of guilt is a much wider phenomenon than the mere suppression of information that potentially implies guilt………guilt can also be suppressed by counter-blaming (the other side is guilty, therefore I am not) and by disqualifying the source of the blame or the judging authority (they have no right to judge me). It can be explained away by blurring intention (I did not mean to do that, it happened by mistake), and by recourse to a claim about coercion (I was forced to do what I did).

Dor examined the coverage of Israels re-occupation of the West bank in 2002. He looked at the three major newspapers (Ha’artz, Ma’ariv and Yediot Ahronot) and 2 TV stations. Keeping in mind the above, in a nutshell this is what he found,

….all the different media, with virtually no exception, implicitly complied with a basic imperative; they suppressed reports that could be perceived as incriminating, that is, reports which would suggest unreasonable or immoral acts committed by Israel intentionally, both at the level of government policy and at the level of IDF conduct on the ground. Most significantly, the media suppressed reports which strongly indicated that the goal of the entire operation was not the fight against terror, but the reoccupation of the West Bank and the destruction of the Palestinian Authority……..

This constant struggle against guilt goes hand in hand with a wider world-view, one which fends off guilt by blaming the other side. This world-view insists that Israel does not have its own agenda in the present crisis, that Israel was dragged into it by Palestinian terrorism, and that the occupation and the IDFs mode of operation play no role in the persistence of terror.

And a few examples to demonstrate the points. Dor looked at the coverage of the Israeli attack on Jenin, particulary by Ha’aretz.

…..Ha’aretz consistently supplies with significant information about the state of affairs on the Palestinian side…...In this sense Ha’aretz is still in a league of its own ….. The other side of this is that very little critical coverage finds its way to the front pages.

In all of this Ha’aretz sends its readers a complex message: on the one hand, the paper accentuates its own commitment to democratic values; on the other, it also indicates quite strongly that with respect to the factual bottom line- who did what to whom, when and why- it prefers to go along with the perspective of the Israeli establishment. This is the perspective which consistently makes the front page……………

This complex attitude is dramatically revealed in the papers coverage of events in Jenin. Ha’aretz publishes quite a few critical reports from the refugee camp, and their distribution is fascinating. Reports originating from within the IDF, or reflecting the Israeli perspective, appear on the front page, or the main news pages. Thus, for example, the first report about Jenin by military correspondent Amos Harel appears on the front page……..

But when Amira Hass sends her first report from the camp, it is published…..in section B of the paper, far from the news pages. The report is an extremely harsh account of the IDF’s actions in the camp. Hass tells the story of a 51-year-old Palestinian man…..who for 5 days was forced to open the doors to houses, while IDF soldiers hid behind his back…………

However, this is not the end of the story. Much more significant is the way the paper itself, in its editorial, refers to Hass’s report. Under the headline ‘There was no Massacre in Jenin’…….This paper’s editors, then, use Hass’s ‘extensive article’ – which they themselves relegated to the back pages – as part of an argument which starts by determining that there was no massacre…..

Part II to follow soon.

Targetting Civilians Ethically

2006-07-29T13:31:00.000+09:30

Absolving Israel of responsibility for it’s actions is one of the main activities for Israels apologists at IsraelForum. Here they promote views that deny Israels targetting of civilians is unethical (let alone a war cime!).

Hezbollah intentionally operates from within a civilian population, often from house terraces and mosque courts. Furthermore, most of the civilians used for these ends do so in full consent and thus they cross the line from non-combatant to combatant.

Any basis for such a claim? None whatsoever. Imagine if we were to apply the same standard to the illegal settlers in Gaza or the West Bank. There would never have been a terrorist attack, as they allowed the IDF to operate from within and near the settlements, and hence the settlers “cross the line from non-combatant to combatant”.

I think it will be a cold day in hell before we see the Forum fanatics suggest something like that. But then these arguments aren't meant to be statements of universally applicable principle, they’re just routine cynical apologetics served up in defence of Israel.

Its weakness is no excuse since it is a result of a conscious decision not to maintain a force that can enforce a rule. An attempt to force it to follow its duties is therefore not unreasonable. In view of this, a measured attack on infrastructure is not illegitimate, more so when it is known that Hezbollah makes use of this infrastructure (i.e transportation routes to the south) for its hostile operations; the only option is to attack these infrastructures in the required measure.

Of course. Hezbollah fighters use electricity and drive their cars on the road, therefore it’s OK to destroy vital civilian infrastructure.

I can’t recall such disgusting and stupid defence of war crimes for quite some time. But then, I haven’t been following Saddam Husseins defence lawyers’ arguments all that closely.

What next? Will Israel bomb hospitals where wounded Hezbollah fighters are being treated. And why not, they have already fired missiles at Red Cross ambulances.

And the same insane apologists will be out there explaining how it’s all OK.

Islam: "Just like Satanism"

2006-07-25T01:14:00.001+09:30

Another favourite activity at IsraelForum is one that I haven’t touched on much yet. And that is Islamophobia. It may be more accurate to describe as a hatred of Islam and Muslims. Whatever it is, a few quotes will give you the general idea.

There is no forgiveness in Islam

the Arab and/or Muslim wars and genocide against the indigenous people of the middle east is still ongoing today

Islam is the only “Religion” in the world in which the believer is not actually responsible for their own belief, the God is. The fact is that only an irrational mind can contain such concepts. I think this is nexus of why Muslims have not progress very far from their 7th century roots.

In summary, “Allah” is a Monster of a God

Over and over Islam preaches that those who are not in the Dar al Islam are to be subjugated

The level of internal contradictions within the "Perfect" Koran are astonding. It’s almost as if it jumbled collection of hastily thrown together ravings of an illiterate murdering thief.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology………..Islam's victory is Islam's domination of the world.

an evil political ideology called Islam

Islam is more of a totalitarian political ideology

Islam is a perversion of monotheism, just like Satanism

you think you can moderate Islam and control it, but this monster is uncontrollable

u muslims should be ashamed for being soo barbaric

a cult that is created by a psychopath and honors the memory of a monster

write against it, ridicule it, and even ridicule its proponents. Islam cannot be reformed, but it can be eradicated.

Thanks for that guide to interfaith dialogue, IsraelForum style.

Bombing and Crying - for Israel.

2006-07-23T17:53:00.000+09:30

The last few weeks, starting with the killing of civilians in the Gaza Strip, interspersed with Palestinian and Hizbollah attacks on Israeli soldiers and finishing with the recent Israeli killing of hundreds of Lebanese has been an orgy of the usual apologetics, excuse-making and hate at IsraelForum.

First we have an attempt at some routine apologetics for Israels massacre of civilians in response to attacks on its military.

It is good that people are shocked and dismayed by the hurt and deaths of innocent civilians. Therefore, it is understendable when they raise their voice of protest when they witness large numbers of civilian casualties and suffering. However, it is somewhat simplistic to just stop and to focus just on this outcome at the exclusion of everything else.........."Heads the terrorists win" because they sap Israeli morale by continuously terrorising, hurting, maiming and killing a few Israeli civilians at a time. "Tails Israel loses" because when Israel reacts, they get chastised by the world for a "disproportionate response"!

What a terrible chastisement that Israel has suffered. And so effective in making it alter it's murderous policies. Isn’t this great, the Forum fanatics think it’s OK for people to be “shocked” that Israel kills hundreds of civilians in response to 2 attacks on military targets that killed only soldiers. But, as they point out, it would be “simplistic” to spend too much time dwelling on that. And really, whatever the outcome, it's poor little Israel that really suffers.

What puerile rubbish! Hundereds of dead civilians, and we should feel sorry for Israel because it's accused of being, oh the horror, disproportionate.

Naturally, it descends into the usual hate-filled bigoted rubbish,

Arabs are like dogs. Dogs like to fuk in public places. Arabs like to show their corpses in public places.They have no dignity.

What a lovely requiem to the innocent Lebanese and Palestinians killed by Israeli military attacks, from our rabid bigots at IsraelForum.

The Milk of Human Kindness

2006-07-09T13:46:00.000+09:30

Our forum fanatics are very concerned at the difficult situation for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and have a solution that will make everyone happy. Surely we aren't about to see an outbreak of compassion?

“Israel does not need to negotiate a cease-fire for the citizens of Israel to be safe. They simply need buffer zones. ….. Israel needs buffer zones along the green line, along every major road in the West Bank, and around every Jewish settlement and farm.……….In order to establish buffer zones, Palestinian emigration must be nurtured………The time is ripe to assist them in the course of action of their choosing, a quiet, secure, prosperous life, outside the cross fire……..”

How very thoughtful.

“After September 11 it has become very difficult for Palestinians to obtain visas to Western countries, although professionals and wealthy investors still are desirable. Even then, it requires significant legal work. We have a network of immigration attorneys that have a demonstrated track record in difficult cases. Visas to undeveloped countries require employment offers first and the majority of jobs are for unskilled laborers. Attorneys are set up in Brazil and Argentina to obtain large numbers of visas…………..”

A group of philanthropists, no less!

“The costs of large scale emigration from Yehuda and Shomron need not cost the government any money and can generate significant revenue for the Israeli government if they sell to Jewish investors land that they purchase and that has clear title, provided that the Jewish owner can build on it and farm it……………..Furthermore, revenue generating joint ventures can be arranged in host countries for large-scale agricultural projects. Many third world countries seek Israeli agricultural expertise. By conditioning the Israeli agricultural project upon employing Palestinian emigrants, emigration of unskilled laborers is not only financed, but generates income for the Israeli government…………..”

The 'spirited' people can then work for a pittance in the ‘transit country’, creating profits for the Government that got rid of them. What cruel genius!

This does remind me somewhat of the words of one of Zionisms’ founding fathers,

“We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment opportunities in transit countries…” -Theodor Herzl

And here they are 100 years later, still trying to do it.

“As this is a grassroots organization that pools talents and resources from various quarters, we seek other individuals and organizations to participate, whether in funding or offering their talents and contacts to facilitate emigration.
We believe this program is in everyone’s best interests.”

Yes, of course, as long as the definition of ‘everyone best interests’ means everyone who counts, ie. Jews only.

Who says that the fanatical Zionists aren’t kind and generous?

Our ethnic-cleansing advocate promotes his website on the Forum, without comment. Well almost. One diehard defender of Palestinians points out what this really is. A ‘Senior Member’ of Israel Forum defends it like this,“the Oklahoma land rush (I forget the year, 1856 maybe?). Thousands of settlers lined up like in a race and waited for the appointed time to simply charge across the border and stake their claim.”

So it's actually just an opportunity for riches!

If only the SS were on hand to give some logistical advice regarding the use of trains!

This is already the official policy of the Israeli party Moledet (Moledet is essentially Kach with a name change). This was the leader of Moledet, Benny Elon, on his plan for Palestinian-Israelis,
“I will close the universities to you, I will make your lives difficult, until you want to leave”.

Moledet also suggested a Government sponsored program of emigration assistance (for non-Jews, of course) to help facilitate this process, which is the logical end-point of Zionism. And this is directed at Palestinian citizens inside Israel.

Naturally the fanatics see its usefulness in the West Bank and Gaza as well and have less need for discretion.

Deserving Victims

2006-06-23T20:06:00.000+09:30

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.

Vilification, Apologetics and Hate

2006-06-11T13:12:00.000+09:30

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.”

Proud of the IDF

2006-06-10T15:12:00.000+09:30

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.

Defending Democracy - "Throw a Few Grenades"

2006-06-06T22:26:00.000+09:30

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.

Spitting on the BBC

2006-06-04T22:43:00.000+09:30

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 IsraelForum.com is dedicated to deterring, because a better informed public is likely to be significantly less sympathetic to the Israeli position.

Apologetics: 1967

2006-06-01T23:30:00.000+09:30

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…..in 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.

The British Hatred of Jews

2006-05-30T16:53:00.000+09:30

The evil spectre of anti-semitism again raises its ugly head, this time in the seething cauldron of Great Britain.
"It just shows the true, ugly nature of Her Majesty's subjects. Hatred of Jews runs deep in the arteries of the United Kingdom. ……..The anti-Semitic pogroms started in Britain as far back as 900 years ago and continued throughout the British history. It has a culture of anti-Semitism."

What are they on about this time?

A British academic union (NATFHE) has called for an academic boycott against Israeli institutions that don't condemn the Israeli occupation.

For our Forum fanatics, any criticism (much less action) of Israeli policy is anti-semitism. Of course, it's a just a tactic to use the moral force of the charge 'anti-semitic' (which is rapidly eroding by the way) to stifle much needed debate on Israeli human rights abuses and its' four decade long occupation of the Palestinian people and its' refusal to accept a just resolution of the conflict.

Perosnally, I don't think academic boycotts are the way to go, but the criticism of the measure as undermining academic freedom, while correct in principle, suffers a significant deficit in this case when used by Israeli academics themselves.
Why? Because Israel has for decades crushed academic freedoms in the OT's, including closing Universities for months, preventing students from getting to class and expelling outspoken academics. What has Israeli academia done about this in support of their Palestinian collegues - a big fat nothing. Israeli academia's concern for Palestinian academic freedom is zero, zip, nada.

As one Palestinian Professors group noted,
"no Israeli academic body or group has ever taken a public stand agianst the military occupation of the West bank and Gaza".

No doubt there were some people running around in the 1980's complaining of anti-white sentiment and 'anti-South Africanism' in relation to boycotts against Apartheid, but they were mostly rabid supporters of Apartheid. Likewise, our IF fanatics get upset when anyone criticises their right to do exactly as they please with the lives of Palestinians.

What is anti-Semitism?

2006-05-26T11:51:00.000+09:30

Anything and everything according to the fanatics at Israel Forum.

Their latest target is a professor at Hebrew University in Israel. The said professor had the temerity to ask the rather obvious question - 'What is a Jewish state?' and suggest that an anaolgy with Apartheid might be appropriate.

A reasonable person might think that such introspection is all in a days work for your average prof.
Not at Israel Forum. An Israeli professor exploring such questions is anti-semitic.

"They hate all what we like.Because, before everything, they hate our chosenness, even, if they will never avow it.The other hatreds built after."

Lets just look at the basic paramters of the situation. Israel actively and systematically discriminates against its' 1.2 million Palestinian citizens, and controls a further 4 million under occupation denying them basic rights. It defines itself as a state of the Jewish people, including those extra-territorial Jews who have other nationalities. It is essentially an ethnic majority state, an ethnocracy.
Or as a Palestinian-Israeli said, Israel is a "democracy for Jews and Jewish for Arabs"

Any exploration of these salient features of the Israeli state, even by Israelis, is anti-semitism. But then that is their answer to almost any critique of Israeli policy or action.

This is a crucial feature of the IsraelForum 'community'. On almost any issue relating to Israel, either internal, or to do with the OTs, forum members, mostly American Jews, have views more in line with the extreme right in Israel than with mainstream Israeli opinion.

Bombing Iran Part II: Slaughter the Jews

2006-05-22T15:55:00.000+09:30

Slaughtering Jews?

This surely has to be the product of some kind of deranged neo-nazi, or in IsraelForum-speak; the evil bloodthirsty Arabs.

Think again.

Fanatical bigots are a bottomless pit of hate towards the object of their loathing, in the case of IsraelForum the targets are Arab people and Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular. But they aren't entirely racist. The reserve a special contempt for one particular group - the Jews! Jews, that is, who fail to be as fanatical as the IFies are.

A forum member had this befuddled comment to make on the Iranian non-story,

"I think it is great when an enemy regime shows its desparation and true color. Yet, there will be a minority of Jews, especially the self-hateful leftist Jews, who will blame Israel and the vast majority of Jews regardless how despicable the enemy is. At the very least they will try to create a moral equavalency between the Jews who are trying to defend themselves and those who are blowing up the Jewish kindergartens."

The point isn't too clear except that there are some Jews who aren't goose-stepping in time with the right-wing crazies at IsraelForum.com.

Then came a response to that comment from someone described as a "Senior Member",

"I am not religious, but I wonder if it is acceptable under Judaism to kill these jews - such as the Neutered Kartei, Peace Now, etc. - who provide political cover for the enemy of Israel.Does anyone know? If so I would certainly advocate jewish groups such as the JDL to simply slaughter this trash at every opportunity."

This is the totalitarian (and murderous) mind at work. Different ideas are simply intolerable, so the holders of them must be eliminated.

Bombing Iran

2006-05-21T15:56:00.000+09:30

There's been a minor outbreak of hysteria over Iran.

This time it's about the non-story of the Iranian Parliament passing a law that would require Jews in Iran to wear a yellow star as identification.

The story isn't true (see Juan Cole's take on it here).

It's all part of the war-mongers propaganda campaign to soften up public opinion in preparation for an attack on Iran.

At Israel Forum they love nothing better than to get their knickers in a twist over some alleged world-wide anti-semitic conspiracy. Even after the story had been exposed as false some couldn't help but indulge in long-held fantasies,

"Israel must broadcast to the Iranian Jews, and follow through on, an option to get every single on out of the country and into Israel if they so wish.
Subsequently, if Israel needs to blow things up in order to get landing spots for planes to transport people out of Iran, so be it. But channels should be created so that Iranian Jews can get out."

Yeah, lets blow things up in Iran on the basis of a false story.

As we saw with Iraq, there are no shortage of useful idiots who will fall for this stuff, or find it a useful pretext to advance cherished plans. And there is certainly no shortage of such people at IsraelForum.com.

2006-05-18T23:06:00.000+09:30

Death to the Liberals!

The latest tantrums are about the recent Israeli High Court decision not to overturn the ban on family reunion for Palestinian citizens of Israel. That's right, the Court up held this discriminatory ban, by a vote of 6-5, hence the outrage by our loony friends at Israel Forum; the Court almost stopped discrimination against Palestinians! That is a near disaster.

The ban prevents a Palestinian from the OTs joining their spouse in Israel. In this particular case, the couple already have 2 children, which the court has, in effect, voted to seperate.

Not good enough for the rabid haters, how dare some jumped up judge vote against such a reasonable measure. The main target is Justice Barak, held in high esteem as a liberal voice at the court. In reality the IHC has been a bastion of conservatism, regularly backing the Governments actions in the OTs, by either specifically approving them or declining to disapprove, eg. in the question of the applicability of the 4th Geneva Conventions in the OTs.

This is what the crazies think of Barak,

"That said, Barak is either an outright moron, or an Arab in disguise."

"Barak always pushes for the anti-Israeli, pro-Arab, and anti-patriotic agendas. It is has nothing to do with any sort of 'liberalism' It is plain and simple anti-patriotism."

And now we approach familiar territory. Remember the Leiberman incident? The IFies are keen on 'offing' anyone who might be less than fanatically pro-Israel than they are, even if it is the head of Israels High Court.

"Every decision leading to a less jewish country is a to be called a betrayal……..Thus Barak is a traitor."

Here we go! There is only one direction this is heading........

A lone voice of reason sarcastically comments "maybe someone should shoot him"

To which comes the immediate response,

"I wouldn't care less if someone does."

That's our IFies. Mad as hatters. Zealots and fundamentalist lunatics, advocating death for anyone with a view on the liberal side of Mussolini.

2006-05-12T06:58:00.000+09:30

Hang Them or Fry Them?

There has been some controversy over the comments of the leader of the Israeli Yisrael Beiteinu party, Avigdor Lieberman. He suggested that Palestinian-Israeli Knesset members should be executed for disloyalty. Liebermans take on what constituted disloyalty or treason was conveniently broad- just talking to Hamas in the OTs or not celebrating Israels Independance Day was enough for Lieberman to order a quantity of rope in anticipation for a lynching.

"The Second World War ended with the Nuremberg trials and the execution of the Nazi leadership. Not only them, but also those who collaborated with then. I hope that will also be the fate of the collaborators in this house"

And over at IsraelForum.com, how did those bastions of reasonableness respond? Typically, as usual.

Check this,

“That said, he [Liebermann] is 100% correct. People like Bishara, members of Meretz, and much of the membership of Avoda belong in jails and electric chairs, not in the parliament.”

The electric chair for talking. They really are as mad as cut snakes.

Another considered opinion on the man some Israelis view as a “fascist and a racist” was,

“God Bless Lieberman!”

Naturally, the crew at IsraelForum gravitate towards the most extreme and racist elements within the Israeli political scene. Birds of a feather.

2006-05-11T22:46:00.001+09:30

Thank God for the Devil.

A regular feature at IsraelForum is an editorial written by the site editor, Michael Rand. The latest is on Hamas' electoral victory, titled "A Deal with the Devil".

In it, Rand celebrates Hamas' victory. Why? Because a Hamas-led PA helps fulfil long-held Zionist dreams,
"Israel will be able to walk away with more land, more regional control, and more international supervision of the Palestinians than under any other circumstances".

How does that work? Quite simply,
"that Hamas is a terrorist organization, will work to Israel’s advantage in final border negotiations with the Palestinians.The U.S., which is no friend of Hamas, will be less likely to force Israel into far-reaching concessions to the terrorist group than it would in the case of a legitimate Palestinian representative at the bargaining table."

No surprises there. This is why Israel was so keen for Abbas to fail. Widely seen as a moderate, negotiations with him might led to pressure on Israel to make concessions, always anathema to the Zionist dream.

So, is this peace, but not as we know it? You bet.

Rand is happy because "there will be no need to pretend that what is being agreed is real peace", all that matters is that Israel will "walk away with more land".

Thanks for that refreshingly honest assessment Michael.

And the forum discusion? Just the usual......

"Even their children’s lives have little value so [Israel]bombing them will have little influence. The only thing they care about is land.
Either they will choose to live in peace or they will be gradually pushed into areas boarding Jordan or Egypt. A second element to this plan would be offer citizenship in the modern world to anyone who will deny Islam. Anyone who would subject themselves or families to these conditions for Islam is by definition an enemy of the modern world. Natural selection at work."

You just gotta love that social Darwinism.

" The point is that were dealing with people[Palestinians] who has no morals, only hate"

"Unfortunately, the guys that run the show continue to indoctrinate each successive generation into hating all non-Muslims. A similar cycle of indoctrination was in operation in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. It was only broken via millions of dead and leveled cities. ..........I sincerely wish there was another way to accomplish the necessary transition for this backward culture............ We are only a handful of stupid Muslims away from WW4."

It's never too long before the second favourite past-time of Islam-bashing enters the discussion, no matter what the original topic,

"mohammad regularly ordered raids on meccan caravans and kept a fifth of the booty. he regularly initiated wars, slaughtered prisoners, ordered the murder of his critics, conveniently received "revelations" to fornicate with virtually any woman (or child for that matter) on earth, and allowed and participated in the rape of jewish women prisoners."

I just love these die-hard peace-niks, all they want is peace.....as long as it's not a real peace......and comes with a bunch of land.

2006-05-10T11:25:00.000+09:30

IsraelForum: 24 hr Vilification, Apologetics and Hate.

In case you're not familiar with IFs' work, here’s a quick sample from Israel Forums' past glorious efforts at promoting tolerance, respect and peace.

Take it away my fanatical friends......

On why it’s OK for the IDF to kill unarmed Palestinian civilians,

"there is no such thing as ‘non-combatants’ in the global war on Islamo—terrorism”

And then there is this kind of barking-mad bigotry that passes without comment on Israel Forum,

“Killing their own children also sends Arabs into a sexual frenzy where they sexually attack anything that moves, either human or beast. In addition, rumors have it that Arab terrorists have a notch on their belt for each dead Arab child that they can blame on Israel”

Our IFies are damn mad about terrorism…..unless the victims are Palestinians,

“If Baruch Goldstein acted in self defense, in order to protect the lives of others, then he is a hero and should be treated that way.
If, OTOH, Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 Arabs, then his act was one to protect Israel from the oppression from Arabs, and he should be treated as a hero”

Everyone got that? Israeli terrorism is impossible, by definition.

And setting the tone at the very top of the Israel Forum heap, is this vote for ethnic cleansing,

“No justification is needed [for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians], just like no justification is being mentioned now that thousands of Jewish families are about to be forcibly transferred (i.e., ethnically cleansed) out of Jewish suburbs in Gaza.”

Do you get the general idea?

Once a week or so, I’ll share IFs members latest contributions to hate-speech and bigotry, just so we can get a better understanding of the kind of people who make up the most vocal part of Israels ‘supporters’.

2006-05-09T00:25:00.000+09:30

Welcome

Welcome to the first edition of Israel Forum Watch.

IsraelForum.com is a particularly strident pro-Israel internet forum committed to fostering and maintaining uncritical support for Israel, particularly in the US.

The site started in 2001, probably inspired by the negative consequences, in terms of PR, that Israel suffered in the 1st Palestinian Intifada, when TV images of Israeli soldiers shooting and beating unarmed Palestinian protestors graced our TV screens for the first time. Knowing that Israeli abuses in the 2nd Intifada where again likely to test the publics tolerance of its’ appalling conduct, some fanatical pro-Israel groupies set up Israel Forum to push an unwavering pro-Israel narrative to ‘explain’ the inexplicable ie, house demolitions, land theft and the killing of the innocent. That is just some of the long list of Israeli human rights abuses for which the IFies spend considerable time and energy producing their grubby apologetics.

What is most interesting about IF is that it opens a window onto the mind of the rabidly pro-Israel crowd, and believe me, it isn’t a pretty sight. While IF bills itself as “24 hr News, Discussion and Debate” it’s more like “24 hr Vilification, Apologetics and Hate”. While Stalinesque obsequiousness towards Israel is obviously de rigueur, the other important task is the dehumanisation and vilification of Palestinians as people. In IF parlance, they simply are not – only suicide bombers, terrorists and anti-semites out to push the Jews into the sea.

Their goals are arrived at by denouncing views with which they disagree, via a heady mixture of innuendo, smear, pejorative labelling, misconstruing, misquoting, misrepresenting, and when none of that works, good old fashioned lying. Add to that, regular doses of intemperate language, anti-Arab bigotry and a bucket full of bile, and you have Israel Forum.

It’s all highly unedifying and testament to the extremism and fanaticism that lies behind much of this predominately American, unthinkingly pro-Israel crowd. Their extreme points of view, and the role this plays in perpetuating the conflict, gets far too little attention. Their preference is to direct attention to the fiction that extremism is only found amongst Palestinians and that they are all sweetness and light, desperately striving for peace, but alas, perpetually disappointed.

So, in the interests of truth, justice and compassion, let’s shine a little light onto this dark corner and see just how extreme and how mendacious they’re prepared to be to promote their mad views………