Middle East and North Africa 17, where everything is what it seems

[aceluby]

Again, this very much depends on what you think the goal actually is.

That's why we should be discussing what the goal should be, not how to achieve a goal that is impossible.

[The Iceman of the North]

Not sure why people keep bringing up "taking out Al Queada" when talking about "taking out ISIS". Those two aren't comparable at all, one is a terrorist organisation without any territory hiding wherever it can all over the world, the other is an armed group controlling a large tract of land in Syria and Iraq. "Taking out ISIS" would 'merely' mean to ensure that ISIS lose control of said territory, not easy but doable. "Taking out Al Queada" would involve eliminating the threat of anyone who would declare themselves a member of said group, which is totally impossible.

[Dicer]

For anyone interested, videos of testimony to the Russell tribunal:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBDtcbghfMdsKkGO9MFG5MPxC3s8gyGES

This one is from a former IDF soldier talking about what they did at Shejaiya in Gaza.

http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/sessions/extraordinary-session-brussels/video-testimonies/eran-efrati

David Sheen's talk is equally powerful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDNFdjwolaI&index=5&list=PLBDtcbghfMdsKkGO9MFG5MPxC3s8gyGES

[Suttree]

As a follow up to the discussion around the Russell Tribunal, I asked for clarification on what I had previously read and a friend described the situation like this:

A "rep" is putting it mildly. The Russell "Tribunal" has nobody defending Israel at all - no "defense attorney" to argue Israel's case, no critical questions asked of "witnesses" by the judges or "prosecutors", no legal arguments supporting Israel, nothing - and the "judges" and "jury" are all long-established critics of Israel with expressed views on the subject they are "judging" (much like the Schabas commission coming out of the Human Rights Council, those judges/jurors would be required to recuse themselves in any legal system with respect for the rule of law) . It's a traveling show trial, nothing more, nothing less.

Let me put it this way: If you heard that your state was adopting the Russell Tribunal's approach for criminal trials - no defense attorney allowed, the accused not present for the trial, and the only eligible judges and jurors being people who had already opined that the accused was guilty before the trial began - how would you feel about its fairness and reliability?

[aceluby]

Not sure why people keep bringing up "taking out Al Queada" when talking about "taking out ISIS". Those two aren't comparable at all, one is a terrorist organisation without any territory hiding wherever it can all over the world, the other is an armed group controlling a large tract of land in Syria and Iraq. "Taking out ISIS" would 'merely' mean to ensure that ISIS lose control of said territory, not easy but doable. "Taking out Al Queada" would involve eliminating the threat of anyone who would declare themselves a member of said group, which is totally impossible.

So when they lose control of the territory, what then? Do we just leave?

[Dicer]

As a follow up to the discussion around the Russell Tribunal, I asked for clarification on what I had previously read and a friend described the situation like this:

Not the fault of the tribunal if they send no representatives from Israel is it? That's Israel's way of delegitimizing the tribunal. The tribunal invited the Israeli Prime minister to participate and he refused.

Here's the thing. They can't get an official investigation into the war crimes, because the US would veto any such resolution in the UN. Israel itself prevents access to the area to UN investigators. Abbas is blackmailed with denial of construction funds for Gaza if he approaches the ICC. And if they hire someone like Schabas to head an investigation panel, the pro-Israel faction immediately decries it as biased. I mean, when a people are locked into a tiny area and then bombed relentlessly leading to over 2100 deaths (including 500 children) and 11,000 injuries, would any non-Israeli person with no connections to it actually be supportive of this? Maybe the Israelis would consider Alan Dershowitz to be fair.

Judge Goldstone was allowed to head the investigation into the previous Gaza conflict, despite his bias and faulty judgements (No apartheid). People are going to have opinions on Israel, one way or another. It's going to be hard to find someone who does not have an opinion on Israel-Palestine to head the investigation.

The Russell tribunal was created especially so that it could bypass the veto exercised by powerful countries in the UN.

And did you actually watch the Russell tribunal testimonies and videos? They have experts and lawyers in things like human rights and genocide who are discussing the issue. People are presenting evidence, including videos, pictures, interviews etc. I, for one, don't need anyone telling me what to believe. I can watch the testimonies and the ensuing discussion and come to my own conclusions.

And that's the purpose of the tribunal. No one higher up, like the UN or governments, is going to validate the tribunal or it's findings. There was guitar playing and singing going on in this tribunal for God's sake! It's for the general public to get an idea of what's going on.

For instance I had no idea that this guy, Ofer Winter, head of the Givati Brigade of the IDF, was a religious nutjob who declares war on the Palestinians because they are an 'enemy who defames God'. Apparently he is a hero in Israel and I found interviews of this guy online.

Similarly, Eran Efrati's story of the massacre and sniping of civilians in Shejaiya as revenge for the killing of Israeli soldiers was also unknown to me until I watched his account of the events that took place there.

Paul Behrens discussion on genocide was also pretty informative.

Not sure why people keep bringing up "taking out Al Queada" when talking about "taking out ISIS". Those two aren't comparable at all, one is a terrorist organisation without any territory hiding wherever it can all over the world, the other is an armed group controlling a large tract of land in Syria and Iraq.

A more suitable comparison to ISIS would be the Taliban. And we have still not been able to get rid of them either have we? Instead, the Taliban is actually making a comeback in Afghanistan.

[Suttree]

And did you actually watch the Russell tribunal testimonies and videos?

There is some powerful stuff in there.

So with the first part of your post. Did they request Israel send representatives and that was denied?

[Dicer]

There is some powerful stuff in there.

So with the first part of your post. Did they request Israel send representatives and that was denied?

Yes, Ehan Efrati says "I understand from your introduction that you invited the Israeli President to appear. I understand that he declined. So I will take on myself the representative of the state of Israel. I hope I do it justice "

If Israel did send representatives, I don't think the tribunal would have refused to listen to them.

It would also be useful to look up the webpage of the Russell Tribunal:

http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/about-rtop

This excerpt is from their previous tribunal on Palestine which is what apparently got them their dismal rep for not having Israeli 'witnesses':

Procedure

The Organising Committee submitted the aforementioned questions to experts who were selected on the basis of their familiarity with the facts of the situation. With a view to respecting the adversarial principle, the questions were also submitted to the Israeli authorities by letter s dated 15 August 2011 addressed to President Shimon Peres. Furthermore, Israel was invited to send representatives to the Tribunal to express its point of view.

The experts submitted written reports to the Tribunal. Israel did not reply to the letters sent. The RToP regrets its decision to remain silent. Written or oral replies on the part of Israel would have assisted the RToP in preparing its findings. The written stage of the proceedings is followed by an oral stage during which members of the RToP hear statements by experts. The full list of experts and witnesses heard during this session can be found hereafter in the programme of the session.

http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/sessions/south-africa/south-africa-session-—-full-findings/cape-town-session-summary-of-findings

So it's not that the tribunal does not give the other side a chance like what your friend says, but that Israel does not respond to their requests. Because actually responding would legitimize the tribunal and they would not want that, would they?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Maybe if the Palestinians want to be taken seriously they should get Hamas out of their government.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

tptwp,

Okay, maybe if the US wants to be taken seriously it gets the Democrats and Republicans out of its government? I'm not a fan of Hamas, but, why do we get to tell another State who they may and may not elect into their government?

[TrueMetis]

Maybe if the Palestinians want to be taken seriously they should get Hamas out of their government.

How well's that working out for the West Bank?

[snake]

With all the West going crazy over ISIS and the threat they pose to the world I read an interesting article about how there are nastier groups out there but that they do not get near the press nor the attention of Western governments. If some of the things this article states are true then the world should be doing something about it. Link.

From the article, a list of some heinous crimes ,

But for the record, the people it targets have reportedly committed: mass rape (of men and women, by rebels and government soldiers) often in front of communities and families, or forcing people to rape each other, as a weapon of war; inventive torture (forcing men to copulate with holes in the ground lined with razor blades, forcing women to eat excrement or flesh of relatives); casual and varied forms of murder (including firing weapons up women's vaginas); use of child soldiers; and ethnic cleansing.

[aceluby]

With all the West going crazy over ISIS and the threat they pose to the world I read an interesting article about how there are nastier groups out there but that they do not get near the press nor the attention of Western governments. If some of the things this article states are true then the world should be doing something about it. Link.

From the article, a list of some heinous crimes ,

The West isn't going crazy over ISIS because of the threat they pose to the world, but the threat they pose to disrupt the world economy, especially for the rich. We aren't going crazy over Congo (though we should) because it has almost zero impact on the people writing the checks.

[Suttree]

snip

At this point I'm just passing this on to my friend who follows this topic very closely. His response to the footage.

Not really, no - because again, it's a "tribunal" composed entirely of "judges" who have already pronounced the accused guilty. Choose your preferred adjective: show trial, kangaroo court, mockery of international law regarding fairness and bias - whatever you want to call it, why in the world would Israel participate? And even without official Israeli participation, surely they could muster someone to play "devil's advocate" and make the best possible arguments for Israel even if they disagreed with them (that's what criminal defense attorneys do, as a matter of ethics, even - especially - with clients they believe or know are guilty, so it's not like people with the appropriate skillset could not be found).

As for Sheen, it's relatively easy to cherry pick extremists in any society. It's pretty telling that he ignores the counter statements of far more influential figures:

Reuven Rivlin, Israel's President: "“The residents of the Middle East, Arabs and Jews, must realize that coexistence is not a cruel fate, but rather our destiny,” he told the Jewish Media Summit at the Ramada Hotel in Jerusalem. “We were not doomed to live together but rather destined to live together." (one of many, many similar quotes)

"Education Minister Shai Piron announced on Thursday that the ministry would allocate NIS one million to increase dialogue and coexistence sessions between Jewish and Arab students. ..."

"The family of slain Israeli teenager Naftali Fraenkel said on Wednesday that it would be "horrifying and despicable" in the event that the Arab youth, whose body was found earlier in the day in Jerusalem Forest, was killed due to nationalistic motives to revenge the murders of their son and two other teens who were buried yesterday.

"There is no difference between blood and blood, murder is murder," read the statement from the bereaved family ..."

Instead, he's quoting folks like "Almog Wagner" - who doesn't show up in a google search as anyone at all (so I have no idea what yeshiva Sheen thinks he heads) and whose quote shows up only in reports of Sheen's comments.

Here's how he quotes Ayelet Shaked:

"Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people ... are all enemy combatants ... This also includes the mothers ...

My god! According to Sheen, Shaked is saying that all Palestinians, including all Palestinian mothers, are "enemy combatants."

Only problem? That's not what she said.

Here's what Shaked actually posted:

This is an article by the late Uri Elitzur, which was written 12 years ago, but remained unpublished. It is as relevant today as it was at the time.

The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.

Now, there's a lot wrong with that; the morality of war does indeed allow for harming civilians in the prosecution of war, but in a far more limited fashion that Uri Elitzur and Shaked seem to be arguing (Dresden, for one, would almost certainly be considered a war crime these days, and Russia's actions in Chechnya as well - though it's definitely worth pointing out that the level of condemnation for the Jewish State is starkly different than the reaction to civilians killed by other militaries, a fact just reinforced by the U.S. strikes in Syria). But one thing Shaked was emphatically not saying was that every Palestinian, and all Palestinian mothers, are enemy combatants. Only those Palestinians who incite to violence, give shelter, vehicles and support to terrorists that enables them to act - including mothers who cheerfully and happily send their children off to die, so long as they can murder Jews by doing so.

Whether you agree with that or not - I think it goes too far, but there is certainly a logic to it - the fact that a "witness" giving "testimony" about Israeli society can so distort basic facts/quotes without being called on it points up the basic unfairness of a "trial" composed only of prosecuting attorneys, unchallenged and biased "witnesses", and "judges" who have declared the accused guilty before being empaneled.

The rest of his testimony is similarly distorted. He puts up pictures of the Beitar soccer fans - known and hated throughout Israel as racist thugs - as though they were typical. He puts up a facebook picture that has a little girl's shoes in it and assumes that the person in the picture is the girl's father - and therefore a sober adult, not an 18 year old with raging hormones (his words) - apparently ignoring that it might be a brother, nephew, cousin, friend, etc. of the family with the little girl. (Note, this isn't a major issue in and of itself - there are plenty of adults in Israel [as in any other country] with abhorrent views, and this may be one of them. The problem is structural; this is the type of "testimony" that would get torn to shreds in any legitimate court room, since it is incompetent [a legal term for a witness testifying to alleged "facts" of which he has no personal knowledge] and riddled with unjustified [and potentially unjustifiable] assumptions. But it's bread and meat to the Russell Tribunal, since it fits with the pre-existing conclusions of the participants, and thus goes unchallenged). He claims that Netanyahu "called for vengeance" - which is a lie; Netanyahu actually quoted a famous Hebrew poem that denied the possibility of vengeance and cursed those who call for it. Sheen makes clear he doesn't understand the reference in his "testimony": "I guess that's his [Netanyahu's] way of saying the worst will befall these people". To the Hebrew speaking audience Netanyahu was addressing, who knew the poem well, it meant the exact opposite; here's the immediately prior line of the poem: "And cursed be the man who says: Avenge!" (Again illustrating why "testimony" from "witnesses" not subject to cross examination is completely useless)

Then his description of the aftermath of the Abu Khdeir murder: "more incitement". Only in Bizarro world. The Israeli reaction was outrage and condemnation - from the Prime Minister (who called it "reprehensible murder" and promised - and delivered - swift justice) to the Mayor of Jerusalem (who called it a "horrible and barbaric act") to politicians and public figures across the spectrum, to the mourning families of the kidnapped and murdered Jewish children -see the quote above from Rachel Fraenkel - to ordinary Israelis, who trekked from all over the country to pay condolence calls on the Abu Khdeir family. Sheen mentions none of this, because it doesn't fit the picture he wants to paint. (Again, this is what happens without cross or challenge).

I'm 10 minutes in and the post is this long; I can't watch the whole half hour because I need to work, and see no need to do so given the distortions so rampant in the first third. I can understand why someone with only a passing familiarity with Israel and the issues under discussion might find Sheen's presentation (and the others) "powerful". But that's the problem with show trials; when only one side gets to present evidence and all of its testimony is unchallenged, the preordained conclusion can seem powerfully obvious. It's only when subject to scrutiny that propaganda falls apart.

Although my friend and I are pretty far apart on this topic, he does raise some very valid points.

[Shryke]

The West isn't going crazy over ISIS because of the threat they pose to the world, but the threat they pose to disrupt the world economy, especially for the rich. We aren't going crazy over Congo (though we should) because it has almost zero impact on the people writing the checks.

No, the West is going crazy over ISIS because they began rapidly expanding on conquering territory in a region where the West has allies and political interests. And, of course, because ISIS advertises this fact.

Like, ISIS has been around awhile. The reason anybody cares now is because they flooded in to Iraq.

[Shryke]

At this point I'm just passing this on to my friend who follows this topic very closely. His response to the footage.

Although my friend and I are pretty far apart on this topic, he does raise some very valid points.

Uh, what valid points?

The whole reply is just hilariously hypocritical. Any of his complaints about the tribunal are invalidated by his own statements in that reply for the EXACT same reason he is invalidating the tribunals opinion.

Quite simply, by his own criteria, his criticisms are invalid.

[Suttree]

How so? There are some direct examples countering the evidence.

Maybe you are just referring to his last paragraph, in which case we know both sides employ that behavior(see Meir Amit analysis of combatant/civilian death ratio).

[aceluby]

No, the West is going crazy over ISIS because they began rapidly expanding on conquering territory in a region where the West has allies and political interests. And, of course, because ISIS advertises this fact.

Like, ISIS has been around awhile. The reason anybody cares now is because they flooded in to Iraq.

And the reasons we have political interests in the region? It's not because we care about their people.

[Shryke]

How so? There are some direct examples countering the evidence.

Maybe you are just referring to his last paragraph, in which case we know both sides employ that behavior(see Meir Amit analysis of combatant/civilian death ratio).

Let's cover this quickly then:

it's a "tribunal" composed entirely of "judges" who have already pronounced the accused guilty. Choose your preferred adjective: show trial, kangaroo court, mockery of international law regarding fairness and bias - whatever you want to call it, why in the world would Israel participate?

ie - the court is already biased on the issue and thus unreliable

We have established a condition for the unreliability of their judgement.

The rest of the post is then couched in terms of his own stance on the issue.

So he himself is already biased on the issue and thus his judgement, by the same standard he uses to criticize them, is itself unreliable.

If you are going to claim a court is biased because it's already got an opinion, you are condemning your own judgement on the issue and thus your own judgement on the decisions of the court.

[Shryke]

And the reasons we have political interests in the region? It's not because we care about their people.

Sure it is. It's just not ONLY cause we care about their people.