"Listen, it's here, below the building..."
While the more progressive among us demand war crimes charges against Israeli military and political leadership for its Gaza campaign, would it make too much of a Zionist thug to suggest that Hamas and its political and military leadership be hauled into the dock as well?
From Ha'aretz:
Footage of a presenter on the Arabic language television station Al-Arabiya apparently confirms that Hamas fired at least one rocket from close to a building used by journalists during the 22-day conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
The Israel Defense Forces shelled the building, drawing international condemnation, and television networks with offices in the building denied that rockets had been launched from anywhere nearby.
But the recording, filmed by an Israeli and released Tuesday by Israel's Foreign Ministry, shows Al-Arabiya presenter Hanan Al-Masri saying that a Grad rocket had been fired from a location near the studios at Al-Shuruk tower in Gaza City. Al-Masri did not realize that she had been caught on camera.
BK:
The last thing you are is a zionist thug. There will be no war crimes trials. I think you and I both recognize the horror of what happened, but war crimes trials are the fodder for the parlor game players, in particular those housing extremists with predispositions for which evidence of criminality and the elements to which evidence is to be applied are afterthoughts and beside the point being made.
In less than one hour we have a new president, one who will hopefully in his first days slap each of us back to reality in many areas, including in the Middle East. My bet is that President Obama will sound pretty much like you and I have sounded over the years on the I-P conflict when he finally speaks out. And that is a good thing--good for Israelis, for Palestinians, for Americans, and good for the world.
Those who look forward choose to do so.
Bruce
January 20, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your keypad to God's eyeballs, Bruce. Thanks, and better days....
January 20, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar and Bruce.
Am I to take from your comments that you would not support Israelis being charged with war crimes, no matter what the evidence shows?
It's a bit confusing because Bar seems to imply that it could be a possibility he/she supports and Bruce seems to dismiss the possibility altogether as a silly little game.
Then Bar expresses hope that Bruce is correct that no warcrimes trials will happen and/or that Obama echoes their views on the I/P conflict.
January 22, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand by my comment. Do you stand by your suggestion that the IDF was intentionally shooting children in the head? I read the "evidence" you supplied for that one lally. Perhaps your own comments in that regard address the "challenge" you pose. Beyond that, I believe in justice, equal and non-discriminatory justice under the law, including that which would be meted out in the international arena.
January 22, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have a problem with Egyptian physicians reporting that they are seeing bullets in the skulls of Gazan kids, then you had better provide your rationale for doubting their findings before dimissing their "evidence" out of hand.
Otherwise, one could speculate that the fact that they're Arabs is the source of your skepticism.
I would be very cautious in assuming that Israelis will not be brought to trial for warcrimes. The Israelis are not so sanguine and started planning for that eventuality months ago. Apparently, they're not concerned about the Hague as they feel that venue is covered, but individual European countries have their own judicial mechanisms that aren't subject to Israeli control.
Livni's recent trip to Belgium was delayed entirely due to those concerns.
January 22, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheap shot lally. I'm a little surprised at you. I didn't question anything a doctor said, Arab or Jew. I didn't think your worldview depended on such assumptions concerning the thinking of those with whom you disagree.
January 22, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try.
Please answer my question directly.
Do you doubt my "evidence" ie reports from Egyptian physicians of finding bullets inside the skulls of Gazan children who managed to survive their headwounds long enough to be transferred to Egypt?
January 22, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try my ass lally, but I'll bite. For the record, however, while speculating that "the source of [my skepticism] is that the doctors are Arabs", let me state that I am probably the only person on this website whose wife's grandmother--Jewish and 90--had her hip replaced in Cairo, Egypt in 2008, by a team of Egyptian doctors mind you. Inferring racism from my skepticism of your thesis of targeting kids is the epitome of a cheap shot, and I do expect more from you lally.
As to your request for a direct response, very well. You have and article with reports from doctors in Cairo that they believe bullet wounds to the skulls of Gazan children are not from close range. From that you submit that Israeli soldiers were targetting the heads of these kids. You have no idea who shot these kids lally; you have one report from one newspaper. That and two bucks gets you on the subway but it's not evidence that the IDF was aiming for kids' heads. You don't know who fired those shots, and you don't know the intent of the shooter[s].
Yea, I support Israel so I don't trust an Arab doctor. Beautiful lally; you trying to fit in with the showroom dummies around here?
January 22, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
bslev,
Am I the only one reminded of the howling accusations of "censorship" and "debate-stifling" that accompany any discussion of the slightest implications of antisemitism in Middle East political discourse?
Let me be clear about the rules. Jews, Israelis and Zionists are to be presumed racist until proven innocent, while progressives and anti-Zionists are to be presumed innocent and no discussion of antisemitism or its implications are admissable in our free and open discourse. Is that about right...?
January 24, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are not only correct BK, it is yet again another example of a most ridiculous and tiresome double standard. But I emphasize what I wrote, and that is I would have and still do expect more from lally. I am prepared to assume that tensions are high for people who pay attention to and are engaged in what happens in the Middle East.
January 24, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
lally,
Wait, what...? Let me understate that lally's presumption appears rather provacative.
Bruce very obviously expressed a hope in a more proactive and productive engagement in a sustained Israel-Palestine peace process:
While I had openly proposed that Hamas military and political leadership be thrown into the same hypothetical dock for war crimes as any prospective candidates among Israeli political and military leadership, lally launches a cynical stunt by taking an obvious expression of shared hope with Bruce's "bet" that an Obama administration foreign policy will be productive, proactive and sustained to reach a conclusion about war crimes trials, essentially piling on the echo of T S Eliot that passes for common Cafe wisdom whereby, reasons of race and religion combine to make any number free-thinking Jews is usually undesireable.
Nice work, lally.
January 24, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
These debates that descend into suspicion of other people's motives or motivations are TIRESOME. Let's take it for granted that posts are not written with the care and proofing expended even on ordinary letters and certainly not on legal briefs.
As one dashes off a few thoughts, it's easy to write something that's poorly worded or ambiguous within itself and somehow misconstrues what another has said. As one reads quickly, it's easy to misunderstand and jump to conclusions.
Being good readers all, we should take the time to think through the possibility that, "He might not have meant it that way."
(Frankly, I read most people this way. MJ, for example, is a passionate writer who isn't always so careful in the way he expresses himself. I don't hold it against him; rather, I squint to see what I think he's really saying behind whatever I might find odd, off-base, or even offensive.)
A good way to do this is to ask for clarification BEFORE leveling an accusation--and not to ask for clarification with a question that cloaks an accusation. The tension immediately rises, and one feels to be under cross examination.
If you read a blogger regularly, assume good will and good intentions on his or her part. Otherwise, why are you reading him in the first place? The blogosphere is filled with racist, anti-Semitic, and all around nasty pieces of work. Why stick here?
June 30, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink