Monday's IDF commander was not a war criminal.

    It's absolutely impossible to say who was "responsible" for that day's 60 deaths. The unspoken assumption underlying a lot of Monday's press coverage is that Israel was to blame. Rightly so?

    Clearly some IDF officer was first to say "Fire." Wasn't he or she responsible?

    Well thousands of Palestinians were approaching. Some had guns without doubt intending to fire them at the IDF. The commander had no moral obligation to wait for that to happen--for at least one Israeli soldier to be hit. Particularly given the 70 years history..

    Doesn't that mean Hamas was to "blame" for organizing Monday's massive demonstration? But in that case isn't Israel to blame for authorizing West Bank settlements whose security arrangements inevitably humiliate Palestinians ? But only because Palestinian terrorism requires it.

    Why can't they just show some Christian charity as Warren Austin said?

    Where is Warren Austin when we need him?


    Trump gave away placing the embassy in Jerusalem. He got nothing in return. Trump could have requested limits on Jewish settlements, etc. He requested nothing. Trump does not care. Netanyahu is trash. Trump is trash. Hamas is trash. The problem is that while Trump and Netanyahu treat Hamas as trash, they also treat Abbas as trash. Palestinians are ignored. The only outcome from the current situation is the same response to apartheid as we saw in South Africa. Israel has no moral high ground. Israel will lose the battle just as South Africa lost the battle.


    Simple - what was their plan for engagement based on event not long ago when they fired on civilians, wounding thousands, killing dozens. Repeat performances indicate intent.

    IDF is trying to send a message, but its messaging is likely a war crime. They're relying on the world to not care that much and the backing of the US to give them a pass. So we're complicit thru our immoral "leaders". Let's try "we didn't know" - hear that's a workable excuse.

    It seems to me that the whole argument is contained here in this article by a Palestinian activist who helped organize the protests:

    My hatred of borders is both universal — in the sense that all Palestinians suffer from them — and very personal. My grandparents and their grandparents were born and raised in the town of Ramla, in the center of what is now Israel. On my walks, I imagined my family’s ancestral land.

    But I also have experienced the destructive impact of borders more personally. I was born in 1984, two years after Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, dividing my city, Rafah, between Gaza and Egypt. The core of the city was razed by Israel and Egypt to create a buffer zone, separating families, including mine, with barbed wire. My mother’s family lived on the Egyptian side and Rafah’s division ended in the separation of my parents. Although my mother lived a stone’s throw away, it was 19 years before I saw her again.

    Isn't that all you need to know? You can't just drop a country onto the heads of a bunch of people already living there and expect them not to mind.  Why can't these people return to land that was taken from their families without their consent?

    The whole thing is one big war crime.


    Over 20 centuries  the relationship between  Jews and the rest was  a crime without a war. Then  they  defended  themselves.. A war without a crime.

     Since then  the settlements policy's been worse than a crime, a blunder. Two states inhabiting one space can't last. So it won't

    But they're smart peoples and sooner or later sensible self preservation will replace romantic fantasies. If we can resist the temptation to try to think we know what's best for them. We don't.



    Oh come on, you're being awfully forgiving. The Israelis are either smart or they're not. For 70 years they've had that land. For 70 years they've had the basic task, "how to make peace with your neighbors". They're not even phoning it in anymore. A brilliant country, excellent tech, billions from both donations and business acumen. And they can't be fucked with these little subhuman people living in the rest of the land they want... eventually.

    I grew up where we supposedly would figure out what black people needed... eventually. And we're still fucking with them a half century later, much like the century before. Until they recognize that the solutions they derive for these people are essential to their reputation, well, eberythings going to be tough.

    No personal experience . Just from the media and travellers tales:

    Until the Rabin assassination they were making an effort, esp under Labour.

    Later,  resumed effort until Sharon's visit to the  "Temple mount". 

    That  the consequent   intifada  and whatever else was going on  eliminated what

    remained of  the  2 states solution margin in popularity.

    As hoped  by the bad people on either side.

    In "To the end of the Land"  whenever the protagonist emerges from  the  trail  whomever she meets immediately  starts to discuss the most recent "atrocity". . Just putting a stake in the  ground.

     Which is   to  to note the similarity to  other  oppressive regimes. Think Gone With the Wind

    or Cry The Beloved Country. Or Turgenev. 

    The enforced subservience of part of society becomes just the

    way things are. Until it's recognized as insupportable,

    Try again. . 

    On re reading , the above is too allusive -and I should clarify. 

    The facts about Israel's  founding are disputed. Most of what I believe comes come from Jewish  sources. Plus  Juan Cole.  

    Which is:  great numbers of Jews who  wanted to get out of Europe after Hitler's defeat were helped by Zionist organizations to  get to Palestine  where there was  substantial Jewish minority  in a majority Arab country.. Some were sufficiently  violent , that , for example, they  set off a bomb in the King David hotel killing  important members of the British administration which was supposed  to be supervising affairs. 

    The British left and almost immediately the country was attacked by an alliance of most of its  Arab

    neighbors .Which it defeated. Hundreds of  thousands of Palestinians fled some voluntarily , many because of pressure from the Jews . In 1967  once again they defeated an alliance of their neighbors.

    Since then there have been were varying levels of violence by the Palestinians but also covert peace talks which  culminated in full fledged negotiations in the 90s during which Rabin was assassinated. Any progress from the talks largely when ended  when Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount prompted a renewed Intifada.

    slightly revised





    next to last paragraph should be modified, it seems to me, to read "Since then there have been varying levels of violence by the Palestinians, the Israelis, and interested others in the region but also..."

    Here's @ The Guardian is the "de-sensitizing violent entertainment" argument. (Comes to mind that a lot of us reject that when it comes from NRA supporters, or say, moms like Tipper Gore. Wondering if it fits here). And in the article, this show is labeled as a new more "fair and balanced approach" compared to previous fare, there would still be effects from past pop culture it is attempting to revise:

    Diana Buttu, a Palestinian-Canadian human rights lawyer and former spokeswoman for the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, points to another problem with Fauda. “If you’re not careful, you find yourself drawn into the assassinations, you get lured into the cat and mouse,” she says, of a series that essentially depicts targeted killings. “The concept of right and wrong gets erased, the illegality gets erased … It just becomes this action-packed show.”


    The next Homeland? The problems with Fauda, Israel's brutal TV hit

    — Guardian culture (@guardianculture) May 23, 2018

    Oh, it's Overton and that buzzer experiment and our team/their team tribalism and getting caught up in the horserace and distractions, etc, etc. It's hard to sustain outrage, and that that is is often contrived.

    recommended; even if you think the author's spinning, there's those messy details in here that news junkies like and partisans don't:


    I wrote: 13 inconvenient truths about what has been happening in Gaza, an attempt to acknowledge the realities partisans often do not

    — (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) May 17, 2018


    Reasonable enough.


    Perhaps straining at a gnat ,  but  I disagree   with characterizing aid  to the relatives of slain fighters as an "incentive".  

    Idunno, that's pretty standard view of payouts for martyrs. Besides being glorified socially, family gets a wad of cash, and thus more are encouraged.

    A cynical retort could be 'in whose interests was it for that view to become standard?' Conversely it's unlikely that any  family facilitates  martyrdom for the  payouts. Or that anyone,not otherwise already  so inclined ,martyrs themself for that. 

    But I agree that for someone who is martyrdom-ready it could tip the balance. So its " a motivator"  but never I'd say "the motivator".

    Which pin head will be the  venue  for the next dance?

    spelling error corrected

    "it's unlikely that any  family facilitates  martyrdom for the  payouts" - you might as well say "it's doubtful any mother would gladly send her son to war" - mothers have done that for thousands of years with different levels of enthusiasm and jingoism. Combine that with reasonable disgruntlement and payouts that exceed avg yearly income - ongoing martyr pensions - sure, it can increase the numbers signing up for violence and suicide attacks.

    Some details on payments - dunno if the best article, but lengthy w numbers and cant be bothered to go back and see... can Google others.

    Thanks, Double A.  I feel smarter for having read this.

    And I now feel it was worthwhile tiptoeing onto an IP thread! 

    You claim they had guns. I haven't heard or read any account that says they had guns. Can you cite a source? To describe Israel's human rights violations in the West Bank as a response to terrorism seems to me to be pretty tendentious--a lot of it was going on long before the genuine terrorism of the second intifada--and it would still be in violation of international conventions even if that were the reason.

    Can you cite a source?

    See point # 7 in the article link I posted above, includes a CNN video.. I'll repost here for your convenience, scroll down to #7 if you don't want to read the whole thing, though I recommend you do:



    From an Israeli publication.

    Among the dead, the IDF said on Tuesday, were all eight members of a cell of armed Hamas operatives who were killed in a gun battle as they sought to breach the fence in the northern Gaza Strip.



    Probably  true, although that was 5-8 guys(Hamas says five) out of hundreds of people shot.


    I don't know; an image of people shooting at a drone the day after the slaughter isn't proof that any of the people who rushed the fence were armed, let alone "a significant number".  I can't read Arabic, so I don't know if Tablet's account of what the transcript says is accurate.

    Essentially, Israelis are subduing Gaza just as European settlers have done everywhere they could.


    Jews suffered under Europeans. Instead of claiming land in Europe as a safe zone, they went to an ancestral home in the Middle East. Arabs were displaced. European states got off scott free. Now we have European Jews battling Arabs. There is no peaceful solution coming.

    Latest Comments