An Honest Voice in Israel By Philip Gourevitch.

[RiffRandell]

From The New Yorker. Not sure if I agree with everything in the article but a few parts struck me. It's an interview with Israeli novelist Amos Oz.

Oz is no hawk. He is the godfather of Israeli peaceniks: in 1967, right after the Six-Day War—in which he fought—left Israel in control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, he was the first Israeli to call publicly for the creation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories, writing, “Even unavoidable occupation is a corrupting occupation.” He has always opposed the establishment of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, and, in 1978, he was a founder of Peace Now. He is a steadfast critic of the policies toward Palestinians of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and, in the Deutsche Welle interview, advocated once again an Israeli deal with the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. “My suggestion,” he said, is “a two-state solution and coexistence between Israel and the West Bank: two capitals in Jerusalem, a mutually agreed territorial modification, removal of most of the Jewish settlements from the West Bank.”

When Oz speaks of the neighbor who shoots at you with a child on his lap, he is speaking, of course, of Hamas, and he consistently makes the distinction clear between Hamas and Palestinian civilians, for whom this war has been a devastating bloodbath. Oz does not absolve Israel from its responsibility for the death and destruction in Gaza—that would be impossible—but he sees Hamas as more than an equal partner in it. That is what he means, he explains, when he describes the war as lose-lose for Israel: “The more Israeli casualties, the better it is for Hamas. The more Palestinian civilian casualties, the better it is for Hamas.” There is no end of argument about how to parcel out responsibility for this war and its ghastly toll on Gazans, but Oz is hardly alone in his view of Hamas’s strategy. My colleague Lawrence Wright, in his deep reporting and one-man theatre piece about Gaza, is unsparingly critical of the Israeli occupation. But, when he turns to Hamas’s attitude towards Gaza’s disproportionately young population, he concludes, “These children are being groomed to die.”

Link: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/honest-voice-israel?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=twitter&mbid=social_twitter

[Fred Sanders]

1. "An honest voice in Israel" is an oxymoron.

[DavidDvorkin]

2. Explain, please.

[COLGATE4]

3. He means that any post not critical of

Israel is by definition 'dishonest'.

[IronGate]

6. Explanation:

any post that doesn't condemn Israel.

[sabrina 1]

19. Let me help, any post that equates the killings of Palestinians with

those of whatever group, the latest being Hamas, that rises up as a result of occupation.

I know the numbers have changed overnight, but last I saw, it was something like nearly 1,300 Palestinians a majority of whom civilians to 64 Israelis, almost all military deaths.

Any post that claims some kind of equality regarding those numbers, should be corrected.

[IronGate]

24. Let me help you.

If the terror org Hamas had not lobbed rockets into Israel, those civilians would still be alive.
If the terror org Hamas hadn't broken every cease fire to date, those civilians would still be alive.
If the terror org Hamas didn't use civilians as human shields, then those civilians would be alive.
If the terror org Hamas didn't use civilian areas to launch their rockets, those civilians would be alive.
If the terror org Hamas didn't dig terror tunnels into Israel, those civilians would be alive.

The terror org Hamas are to blame for those civilian deaths, not Israel.

[intaglio]

28. Here let me help you

If the IDF had not falsely accused Hamas on the West Bank of killing the 3 hitch-hikers and taken revenge against those communities Hamas would not have started retaliating.
If IDF troops did not shoot 15yo girls without cause Hamas would not have started retaliating.
If Israel had begun attacking Hamas instead of the civilian population those civilians would be alive
If the IDF refused to target schools where no missiles were stored those civilians would still be alive
If Israel had not falsely declared at least one ceasefire broken many civilians would still be alive
If the IDF did not use flechette shells on largely civilian targets many of those civilians would still be alive.
If Israel would stop destroying tunnels used to import humanitarian supplies and falsely declaring them "terror tunnels" many civilians would still be alive.
If the IDF would start shooting at Hamas rather than at civilian areas and then lying about human shields many civilian deaths would be avoided

Israel must accept the blame for most if not all of the civilian deaths and stop acting as an outlaw state.

[IronGate]

29. Sorry, but I totally reject your talking points. nt.

[intaglio]

30. Ok, why reject them

Is it because the facts I have given do not fit with your bigotry?

[IronGate]

31. No, because the facts I presented don't fit your talking points. nt.

[intaglio]

37. Mine are not "talking points"

Unless your own falsehoods and misrepresentations are talking points.

Do you deny that an IDF officer shot a 15yo schoolgirl who presented no threat to him?
Do you deny that the original accusations against Hamas for the deaths of the hitch-hikers later had to be withdrawn?
Do you deny that the deaths of civilians have been falsely attributed to their use as human shields - a claim rejected by impartial observers?
Do you deny that schools with UNWRA staff present have been targeted by IDF air strikes and artillery, schools where no weapons were stored?
Do you deny that the deaths and kidnap used by the Israeli government as an excuse to abandon the latest ceasefire happened before the ceasefire began?
Do you deny that the IDF uses flechette bombs and shells in areas with majority civilian occupancy, an act in breach of the Hague conventions?
Do you deny that the tunnels into Israel serve no conceivable military purpose but have been documented as serving to allow humanitarian supplies to be imported?

Do you deny that the vast majority of civilian deaths have been caused by Israeli ordnance?
Do you deny that Israel is and has been guilty of ignoring international conventions on war and humanitarian access; guilty of ignoring UN resolutions and the Geneva conventions; guilty of engaging in mass reprisals as a policy of war (the Dahiyeh doctrine); do you deny that Israel has developed nuclear weapons in breach of the non-proliferation treaties; guilty of pre-emptive strikes against it's neighbours; guilty of maintaining a squad (Kadon) dedicated to murder in foreign countries? Israel is an outlaw state.

[IronGate]

39. Sure they are.

Do you deny
If the terror org Hamas had not lobbed rockets into Israel, those civilians would still be alive?
If the terror org Hamas hadn't broken every cease fire to date, those civilians would still be alive?
If the terror org Hamas didn't use civilians as human shields, then those civilians would be alive?
If the terror org Hamas didn't use civilian areas to launch their rockets, those civilians would be alive?
If the terror org Hamas didn't dig terror tunnels into Israel, those civilians would be alive?

[intaglio]

42. Still no response to my points

If you were not reading disadvantaged you would see that I have answered all your questions.
1) Given that many of the civilians are subject to starvation, oppression and retribution at least some of them would have been dead because of Israeli action if Hamas had not fired the rockets. This is because Israel is an outlaw state ignoring simple humanity.

2) Hamas did not break every ceasefire, at least one was probably broken by the Israelis, also the Dahiyeh doctrine allows Israel to respond disproportionately so therefore some if not many of the civilians would have died even if Hamas had not broken any ceasefires. This is because Israel is an outlaw state that does not hold to the conventions of war.

3) Hamas does not use human shields, it does not fire from occupied buildings. Because of this I can definitely say that the civilians would have died because they were not used as human shields.On the other hand the IDF frequently uses human shields. This is probably because Israel is an outlaw state that allows it's troops to break the conventions on warfare.

4) This is the same nonsense as (3) just rephrased. The counter is; Israel, in breach of international conventions, uses weaponry designed to cause the maximum damage to the civilian population in accordance with the Dahiyeh doctrine, so yes most of those civilians would have died no matter where the missiles originated.

5) WTF is a "Terror Tunnel?" does it have ghosts and spider webs? What is more, as Israel has demonstrated, it knew exactly where those tunnels were so, yes if these tunnels (which were used to import humanitarian goods) had not been build Israel would still have massacred civilians. This is because Israel is an outlaw state.

[Nevernose]

41. It was Fatah that turned over the kidnappers' names

And to make the point clearer, when Jews were reaponsible for killing Arabs less than a week later, those Jews were arrested and are now awaiting trial.

Most of the rest of what you wrote is just total bullshit. For instance, Israel can't just "attack Hamas" because Hamas is integrated I to the civilian structure.

For instance, both the Israeli and Egyptian governments have found counterfeit IDF uniforms in the tunnels, more than once. The tunnels to Israel are for smuggling munitions. The only things that the blockade prevents are things that can easily be used to build rockets (and obviously the tunnels are being used to smuggle rocket parts, otherwise Hamas wouldn't have thousands of them).

They don't need to lie about human shields. You can watch the rocket launches live on AJE, coming from civilian neighborhoods.

Israel could demolish most of the tunnels and rely on their Iron Dome and no one would get killed, or very few people. That would be both the intelligent and humane thing, and they are wrong for not taking the least violent path. Many innocents have died because of this total lack of restraint.

However, spreading one side's obvious propaganda is just as ludicrous, and serves only to distract.

[intaglio]

44. Bullshit what a nice word you use

I did not claim that Hamas turned over any names, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I did say that Israel's claim that Hamas was responsible for the kidnaps was false and that the disproportionate response that Israel launched in response to the kidnaps was directly responsible for Hamas beginning its bombardment.

I might point out to you that the IDF is "integrated I(n)to the civilian structure". Not only that but as Israel has forced vast numbers of Palestinians into the Gaza "Ghetto" it is a bit difficult obtain physical separation of military and non-military groups.

Interesting how the narrative on these scary terror tunnels is changing. Now it seems that everybody knows where they are but somehow no-one wanted to block them. Now as to IDF uniforms being found, what easier way to go and meet a supplier of contraband food than to wear an Israeli uniform? That is assuming they have not been planted.

Actually that video to which you refer is of a rebel in Syria (IIRC filmed in January), not Hamas anywhere. In actual fact the only forces known to use human shields are the IDF It makes no sense for Hamas to use Palestinians as human shields because they want to recruit not have their base population alienated and they are just as aware of Israel's appalling human rights record as I have become.

As to spouting propaganda, I am pretty careful to check my sources and avoid the worst. My view of Hamas is that they are a nasty set of vindictive terrorist Islamists who have the good fortune to be contrasted with an outlaw government that ignores human rights, the conventions of war and human dignity.

[malaise]

32. No it is the Israeli government who killed those civilians

and nothing you post changes that fact. Bibi and his IDF are to blame for those deaths.

[IronGate]

33. Your wrong.

and nothing you post changes that fact., The terror org Hamas are responsible for those deaths.

[sabrina 1]

43. That didn't help at all. When people are OCCUPIED and abused and denied rights

imprisoned, tortured etc on THEIR OWN LAND, they will rise up, it is HUMAN NATURE. Of course there ARE people who do not view others as 'human' so they don't expect the normal human reaction of an oppressed people. But such people hopefully exist only on the fringes.

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians CREATED HAMAS. And the PLO and until Israel stops creating groups that are naturally going to arise out of the kind of oppression the world is now witnessing, they WILL EXIST.

All those talking points you just listed, are simply being ignored by most of the world, so don't waste any more of our time repeating, because no matter how many times you repeat false information, it remains false.

IF you want the world to start listening to you, then tell the truth and offer a way out so that there will be no need for any 'terrorist' organizations.

Right now the world, who has little interest in these two nations, other than what they see every few years or so, views Hamas as immaterial to what Israel is doing. Don't you get that yet?

[tritsofme]

4. So all Israelis are liars? Cheats too? Something about money loving...

I hear they feast on babies, any new developments on that?

[Fred Sanders]

7. Hyperbole and the old ad hominem logical fallacy attack....so boring and common.

[tritsofme]

9. You are the one who classified all Israelis as liars. Not me.

[IronGate]

10. If it's so boring and common, then why do you post such nonsense?

[BillZBubb]

8. Cheap shot. Quit drawing strawmen.

[tritsofme]

11. Then what do you call classifying all Israelis as liars?

Given your defense of this tripe, I suppose you might call it descriptive?

[BillZBubb]

14. See my comment to Fred below.

You may "sure" like you are on a lot of things. And you would be wrong as you seem to be on a lot things.

[tritsofme]

16. Good for you. I'm glad you disagree with Fred that Israelis are all liars.

[Fred Sanders]

13. As the bodies pile up in telegenically dead heaps in the shattered streets, it is all they got...

forgive them, they know not what they do, the propaganda beat is relentless, they are the targets and victims also.

[malaise]

34. According to the polls out of Israel 90% of them support

this genocide and collective punishment.
That should frighten everyone on the planet.

[sabrina 1]

21. Are you quoting someone here, or just making stuff up? If you ARE quoting

someone, please link, thank you. Otherwise your comment means nothing.

[tritsofme]

22. Echoing Hamas perhaps with the last 2.

But paraphrasing Fred in the first.

[RiffRandell]

5. Did you read the article?

That's a shitty statement to make.

[BillZBubb]

12. Fred, I generally agree with your posts, BUT...

this one is over the top. There are plenty of honest Israelis, unfortunately, they aren't in charge of policy there.

[Fred Sanders]

15. Yes, I know, hyperbole, I admit.

[tritsofme]

18. So you post hyperbolic nonsense, and get all huffy when people respond in kind.

lol

[Fred Sanders]

20. I expect people to recognize hyperbole, my bad.

[tritsofme]

23. It can be hard to tell these days.

Classifying all Israelis as liars is not many steps away from what you normally post.

[Fred Sanders]

25. Misconstruing hyperbole and setting up ad hominem attacks is what they normally post...boring.

Even factual information free from hyperbole.....same attack...you get used to it, even welcome it.

[IronGate]

26. Boring, as is your constant anti Israel attacks. nt.

[Fred Sanders]

27. So now some of my fan club members post I am "anti-Israel", a step up for them...I'll take it!

"Anti-Israel government" would be the next logical retreat.

[RiffRandell]

35. Attention everyone!

I don't want anyone getting any hides; that was not my intention.

I honestly thought it was a good article for an extremely fucked up situation.

If hosts want me to self-delete, I will.

[IronGate]

36. No, no, leave it up, debate is good for the soul. nt.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

38. A non-political comment: Non-New Yorker subscribers can't link to the article

I get a link to a tiny copy of the New Yorker. When clicked, it takes me to a subscription page.

I tried Googling the title. Same deal.

[RiffRandell]

40. Thanks for the info; I follow them on Twitter.

Hmm...will see what I can do.