Grandmas Patrolling Israel's Checkpoints

Your piece, with its images of lovable bubbes wagging their fingers at chastened soldiers, fails to convey the degree of political conviction that motivates these women. Describing them as "Upset about the current state and management of Israeli checkpoints" totally obscures the depth of their disagreement with current Israeli policy. From their own words, it's clear that they're not looking for more well-managed checkpoints, but instead for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank entirely.

Their organization is utterly opposed to the occupation, not just concerned that it be carried out humanely. In the brief history of the organization at the link you provided, one of its founders declares, "We definitely saw ourselves as a radical, even subversive movement...", and, "There is an occupation out there, it is vicious and immoral and we need to be clearly on the side of opposition with no holds barred." 

"When grannies are on watch, people watch their step. And that is exactly what Machsom Watch wants."

Nope. They want an end to Israel's shameful occupation, as do all decent people, not that it be administered more kindly. In the same history I cited above, a founder of MW says it would be unfortunate if they were portrayed as merely "....the humanitarian face of Israel." I'm afraid that's the impression your article made.  

Some of us want all of the terrorists sent packing.

"not all want an end to Occupation. Some of us want all of the terrorists sent packing"

Send all the terrorists packing and you've by definition ended the occupation. 

Some may find your anti-Israeli schtick charming, I find it tedious and mendacious. The Israelis pulled out of Southern Lebanon and Hizbullah moved in and started a war. Israel pulled out of Gaza and Hamas moved in and is daily trying to murder as many Israelis as they can. You in past posts have denied the Jewish history in Israel and embrace the asinine theories of Cananite pedigree for the Palestinians, you discount any evidence or research that counters your foolhardy claims and now you believe that Israeli occupation is terror, yet you never denounce any of the actions that are real terror. It is sad.

Funny, I've never heard "charming" from either my critics nor my ideological comrades, at least with respect to my opinions of Israeli policy. Tedious I can't help you with; I try to be concise and engaging, but I guess I've failed you. Mendacious? That's rich, coming from someone who claims that

"The Israelis pulled out of Southern Lebanon and Hizbullah moved in and started a war."

Um, the Israelis were routed by Hezbullah, they didn't pull out on their own. And whence, on your account, did the Hezbullah "move in" from? Most sober observers describe them as a Lebanese group.

Similarly, Hamas "moved in" to Gaza? From Belgium? Maybe Detroit-I understand the place is seething with Palestinians.  

So you have Hezbollah moving into Lebanon after they expelled the Israelis from Lebanon, and Hamas moving into Gaza. Hmmm. Amazing how mobile those pesky Arabs can be, what with the checkpoints and all. And through both space and time to boot!

Listen, once you master fundamental notions of temporal and causal direction, let me know and maybe we can have a conversation about the specifics of Israel's brutality. 

You are nothing more than a pro-terror hack. You want to have a discussion of Israeli brutality, yet all you offer is a world in a vacuum where the poor ole Arabs are kicked and knifed by the Big powerful Jews. Please, you never allow the facts to cloud your support of terror groups. Explain for all here the justification of the Sderot bombings. Explain why the first thing after the Gaza handover the Arabs smashed the greenhouse and wrecked the agriculture centres. It takes two to make peace. Why do you not ever speak out against the barbarous tactics of Hamas, Fatah and Hizbullah?

This is a useless conversation since your comments are largely uninformed and lack interesting analysis. But, in the spirit of generosity for which we Arabs are acclaimed, I'll address your points and leave the remaining remarks to you.

Hack? Well, I don't think so, but to each his own. Pro-terror? Citation, please.

Vacuum? Not at all. I try to embed my argument within a very specific social and political context. Within that context, I understand Israel to have historically been the aggressor in the middle east. We differ on this point.

My support of terror groups? Tsk, tsk. Again, citation please.

The Sderot attacks (not properly called bombings, in the interest of precision)? I do not justify them, since they involve harm to civilians. I can give you reasons for them, but I do not justify nor support them. Why would you suppose that I do? 

Regarding the greenhouses, recall that about 50% of them were dismantled or rendered inoperable by their Israeli owners just before the settlers were removed from Gaza. Recall also that, about a year before Gaza was finally rid of the settlers, the Israeli army destroyed tens of thousands of citrus trees in the town of Beit Hanoun, perhaps the most fertile area in Gaza. Shall I also remind you of the money lost and lives ruined by Israel's regular delaying of perishables at border crossings?

I bring these things up to point out an interesting aspect of your method. You completely ignore the regular and consistent assault upon Palestinian agriculture by Israel, an assault by one people against another with great cost to the latter, while crowing about the foolish actions of some hooligans which affected only their own people-no cost to Israel at all.

It takes two to make peace? What a shock! We agree! Now convince your pals in Israel, who continue to spurn Hamas' offers of a truce on the idiotic and transparently fraudulent grounds that Hamas is too hostile, as though it is not between enemies that peace is made. 

So, you ask me why I don't speak out against the excesses of the Palestinian resistance, and I ask why you don't speak out against Israel's unconscionable tactics towards the Palestinians. But don't be fooled by the superficial parallel between our claims against one another. Suicide bombings and similar indefensible attacks on civilians by Palestinians are denounced by virtually everyone-it is among supporters of Israel that tortuous and Procrustean arguments in the service of perfuming crimes against civilians are found.

Do I reject the killing of civilians? Yes. And I'm quite fond of apple pie, and my Mom's an absolute angel. And where do you stand on, say, killing 14 year old girls in the service of capturing their fathers? During an incursion into Gaza? If Hamas crept into Israel to capture an Israeli they  held responsible for some atrocity or other, killing his kid in the scuffle, would you shrug her death off as merely a regrettable and unintended consequence of war?

As I said, I think you've shown neither the knowledge nor the intellectual dexterity to be taken as a serious interlocutor, but we Arabs are a gracious people. I give to you the time this note took as a gift. No need to thank me, and you may have the last word.

This is the essence of anti-Semitism, we Jews are a Rorshach test for the world. You keep asking Jeff for citations, but you haven't cited anything yourself, and you refuse to do so.

Here's some Google Magic. Open a Google Search and type in Gaza Greenhouses. What you or any sentient being would find is that they were purchased by many US Jews and Bill Gates among non-Jews as gifts to the Gazans. What happened in 25%, is that the water was turned off and the produce died. The solution? Turn on the water. Take some money that purchases Qassams or Katushas and pump some freakin' water into the still functional greenhouses. But now none of the greenhouses are useful because the Gazan simply destroyed the houses making them ALL useless. Now how hard was this? Going to Google search, entering Gaza greenhouses, and pushing a button? Too hard for a person who dislikes the facts--and then complains that the other person ignores reality. Rorshach.

And I realize that when Israel was founded and the surrounding Arab countries declared war that such an action could never be considered aggressive, starting a war that hasn't yet ceased. Because for you it's the Israelis that were actually the aggressor. Now once again, Google Search, Wikipedia, 1948 Middle East War---fought mostly in the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine--that means the newly minted Israelis were attacked, since the war was fought within the new Israel. But to you it's Mr. Weaver who's not doing his proper citations.

Now where do you stand on the use of human shields, children sent ahead of the adults to attack the IDF? How about that tactic Napolean? Once again, Google Search, Wikipedia, Human Shield:

In March, 2008, Fathi Ahmad Hammad, member of the Palestinian
Legislative Council, explained the theory and strategy of the use of
human shields in warfare this way: “ For the Palestinian people, death
has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people
living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the
mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields
of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order
to challenge the Zionist bombing machine.” ^[1]

And who can forget your brilliant defense of the killing of people reading books because they were students of Rav Kook? Not sure you completely reject the killing of civilians--unless your are willing to admit the use of human shields by Israel's attackers.

And you say the Mr. Weaver isn't serious? We're all just ink blots to you.

"This is the essence of anti-Semitism, we Jews are a Rorshach test for the world."

This sentence is impenetrable. If you care to clarify, I'll be happy to show where you're wrong. Nice move, though, getting "anti-Semitism" in play after only five words. That there was not a particle of anti-Semitism anywhere in my post, of course, in no way diminishes  your eagerness to smear, you old scoundrel. Wait, I'm getting something.....I see....I see a fish....it's a trout, I think.....no, wait...a herring! That's it! And it's bright, bright red. 

"What happened in 25%, is that the water was turned off and the produce died. The solution? Turn on the water. Take some money that purchases Qassams or Katushas and pump some freakin' water into the still functional greenhouses. ...Now how hard was this? Going to Google search, entering Gaza greenhouses, and pushing a button? Too hard for a person who dislikes the facts--and then complains that the other person ignores reality. Rorshach."

Whoops. Here's what Google gave me, courtesy of Aaron Klein, no friend to the Palestinians:

"But several Jewish Gaza refugees who were allowed to briefly return to their hothouses said most of the produce currently inside is now dead.Tucker, who owns large structures, said her hothouses were set to be watered by automatic irrigation systems.

"The sprinkler systems didn't work because Israel stupidly turned off the water after the Gaza withdrawal," said Tucker. "All my work, down the drain." "

And:

"A former resident of Jewish Gaza's Ganei Tal farming community who asked his name be withheld said, "Most of the greenhouses in Ganei Tal are dried up. This better not effect our payment because it's not our fault Israel turned off the water.""

Wait...I see something....it's...it's a petard! And I see someone trying to ignite it...oh my god!...it exploded!...he's hurtling through the air...poor naftali!

By the way, the citation is to the rabidly conservative and Israel-friendly WND. Since you're such a Google maven, you should have no trouble finding it. 

As far as your unhinged efforts to drag the entire history of the middle east into a discussion of a very specific event, well, anyone who brings up the origins of one of the most contested aspects of modern history and proposes to settle it with a wiki citation simply doesn't understand what an historical argument looks like.

Human shields? Citations? How about this?:

"The use of human shields to deter gunmen from opening fire on soldiers was banned by Israel's supreme court and forbidden by the army. However the practice, in which soldiers force Palestinians to approach, enter and search buildings where they believe gunmen may be hiding, remains common." 

 Here's your link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel

Note also that your citation was to a MEMRI piece. You will pardon me if I don't regard MEMRI, a propaganda sewer founded by an Israeli intelligence officer, as an unimpeachable source.

Re your third iteration of the easily exposed lie that I defended the killing of students, there is little to say but that your factual ignorance and interpretive confusion are exceeded only by your moral idiocy.

Very generous of you to come to the defense of the hapless Weaver, though. Very gracious. Are you sure you don't have a little Arab in you?

Dude, you hate Jews.  And you accuse Jews and especially Israelis of what your are guilty of  yourself.  I know , impenetrable concept.

About the greenhouses--that's what I read.  So, Gazans, figure out a way to get some freakin water into the greenhouses--maybe, I don't know, dig a tunnel, use pipes, make arrangement with Egypt, build some desalination plants--water.  Instead, they spend money and time figuring out ways to kill civilians--so...the Israelis didn't destroy the greenhouses.  The Gazans did this.  

Fabulous how you completely ignored the quote from the PLO legislator.  I think you asked about Israel killing a fourteen year old girl--I think the response is that the PLO is proud that they put these kids in the line of fire--but you deplore the killing of civilians.  Yeah right.

Do speak Arabic?  Then why don't you provide examples of MEMRI's poor translations.  That would be wanting a citation--which you don't provide unless under duress, and then you'll misinterpret the data.  Just look at how you interpreted the main article--the grandmas are looking after the soldiers-- they want them to think twice about what they do.  Not a bad thing.  Slightly different than the mother who is honored by the fact that her three sons who blew themselves and some civilians to pieces.

Let's see--since the Israelis are, in your writings, always committing evil, since the Jews are always in some way lying--I don't know where I get the idea that you're anti-Semitic?

And now you're just denying what you said about Rav Kook.  

Let's summarize the initial impenetrable comment.  You are dishonest, and yet you accuse the Jews of being dishonest.  You misinterpret, willfully since you ain't dumb, basic texts, but MEMRI can't do it's job accurately.

Like I said.  We're all inkblots to you.  You are arguing with a mirror.   

Is a big, fat, heavy load. And nobody wants to go around on the Internet citing every thought they happen to log on our site. No one would read that anyway. Everyone's comments are long enough without an anchored list of Works Cited at the end of it.

From an impartial observer, all I see is Ismail lodging some legitimate grievances about the piece followed by Jeffrey Weaver's hair-trigger anti-Israeli'dar going wild. He makes some broad comment about terrorists being bad to illustrate his points.  Ismail responds, explaining in a sensible (albeit unsourced) post the individual reasons why Weaver's full of it...

..And here's where the discussion breaks down, because Weaver ignores the arguments Ismail has made and instead, opts to insult him, blanket minimize his statements into some sort of feeble polemic, and then re-focus the dialogue on a different issue. Even back in High School Speech and Debate it's be no question where the points would be awarded.

I appreciate your coming, Naftali, because you're at least making an argument and disputing points here. It's pointless for Ismail to write a thesis in response to Jeffrey Weaver if it's never going to get read anyway.

Sometimes I also wonder if you guys are two halves of a malfunctioning A.I. that will someday seek to reconcile and take over the world.

"Sometimes I also wonder if you guys are two halves of a malfunctioning A.I. that will someday seek to reconcile and take over the world."

A.I.? Which one of us is artificial and which one is intelligent? 

Ah, now I get it. You're saying that Jews for me are projective devices, receptacles for my own disavowed vices. Is that it? Well, thanks for the silly little attempt at dollar-book Freud, but no.

" ...you accuse Jews and especially Israelis of what your are guilty of  yourself."

Not being the stupid racist of your fevered imagination, I accuse Jews of nothing whatsoever, except perhaps of having the misfortune of including you among their number. I accuse Israelis (or, more specifically, successive Israeli governments) of a great deal. Since I myself have never carried out serial assassinations nor worked to commit sociocide nor caused the death of grandmothers by capriciously preventing their transport to medical care, my accusations against Israel bear no relation to my own shortcomings, regrettably numerous though they are. 

"About the greenhouses--that's what I read.  So, Gazans, figure out a way to get some freakin water into the greenhouses--maybe, I don't know, dig a tunnel, use pipes, make arrangement with Egypt, build some desalination plants--water.  Instead, they spend money and time figuring out ways to kill civilians--so...the Israelis didn't destroy the greenhouses.  The Gazans did this."

This is priceless. You accuse the Gazans of lacking the intelligence or gumption to turn a faucet. I point out that you stupidly reversed the arrow of responsibility, citing a pro-Israeli source that it was The Only Democracy In The Middle East that was in fact the culprit. Shamelessly, you then blame the Gazans for not figuring out a workaround-build a desalination plant, you suggest, when Israel won't allow a fucking coffee filter across the border. How insanely high-handed of you, you little prick, to blame a people systematically immiserated by Israel for not building a pipeline when they haven't the resources to build a birdhouse.

"I think the response is that the PLO is proud that they put these kids in the line of fire-- 

First of all, you astoundingly unlettered ignoramus, the killing in question occurred in Gaza, where, you may have heard, the PLO is in rather bad odor. You of course meant to say Hamas, didn't you? Precision and accuracy are your friends. Get to know them.

More important, though, is your highly idiosyncratic use of the phrase, "put these kids in the line of fire", where this means, "living at home with your parents". As I said, shameless.

Besides being able to ask for my favorite foods and to curse robustly, I am ashamed to admit that I speak not a word of Arabic. How much do you speak? My attitude towards MEMRI follows from these observations; while it purports to be window onto the conflicts in the middle east, it utters not a word about any Israeli shortcoming (were there any translations of Rabbi David Batsri's lovely opinion that Arabs were donkeys, created by god in human shape to work at certain tasks? Or of the Tsomet Institute's Yisrael Rosen's suggestion that Palestinian men, women and infants-even their donkeys!-should be killed? Or of Shmuel Eliyahu, rabbi of Safad, who thought it seemly and wise to urge the hanging of the kids of the murderer who detonated himself in the Merkaz Haarav center?). Also, MEMRI's having been founded by a longtime Israeli spook suggests that its function is primarily propaganda and not enlightenment. Finally, while I am innocent of the beautiful language of my forefathers (forgive me, grandfather!), many others not as linguistically benighted as I have pointed out MEMRI's translation shortcomings.

Look, Arabs have said stupid and hurtful and monstrous things. So have Israelis. MEMRI's game gets us nowhere if it's finding a solution that we're really after.      

" ...since the Jews are always in some way lying-- "

You know, Naftali, I'm trying to find a way to engage with you, but this sort of thing is just reprehensible. Please find me one instance where I said anything remotely like this. You need to try and distinguish your fears and distortions from reality if you want to play with the adults. I have been the focus of painful racist behavior from both Jews and Gentiles. I take racism of any sort very seriously. You demean yourself by making these accusations, and you give a pass to genuine racists by cheapening the charge. 

 "And now you're just denying what you said about Rav Kook."

No, there's your boundary problem again. I'm denying what YOU SAID I said about Kook. This should be clear to a Labrador Retriever by now, yet you, presumably a human being, remain unpenetrated by this simple truth. I say again, if you mean to be taken as more than a scurrilous scumbag, provide the sentence which expresses the proposition you claim I endorse. Can't be all that hard, given your storied affection for Google. I will take your inability to provide a source for your serious accusation as an admission that you are either a dope or a liar.

If you think that mounting a robust and relentless critique of Israeli policy, to which I happily and proudly admit doing, is tantamount to anti-Semitism, we have nothing to talk about, at least as regards the Middle East. If you locate your charge in something besides my political opposition to that policy, please let us all know what I've said or done to  warrant the charge. Failing that, would you kindly shut the fuck up?  

Craig, you don't appear to be completely an impartial observer judging by your comments.

 Nonetheless, it is quite clear that Mr. Ismail has quite correctly criticized the author of this piece has missed the boat in her portrayal of these woman as "lovable bubbes wagging their fingers at chastened soldiers" and he spot on in pointing out that "their organization is utterly opposed to the occupation, not just concerned that it be carried out humanely."

 Now one does not have to agree with everything Mr. Ismail has written to agree with this very will pointed critique.

I just said you were a racist. Not at all stupid, since you'll understand this reference about your logic being one big antisemitic moebius strip--always ending up, no matter what data you find or see, with the Israelis or the Jews doing or saying something so devious that they are deserving of murder or genocide. And you're smart enough to dance around like--Eleanor Powell (you'll get that too)--to imply this without stating it in clear English.

Just read the thread. You start with a lie, that Israel itself destroyed 50% of the greenhouses. Nothing like that happened. They left Gaza and turned off the water--was it THE ISRAELIS, or the last guy out? Even if it was the Israelis, (or some guy at the water works), the greenhouses were just fine, the crops died. So---plant more, get water. Was I insinuating the Gazans are stupid, as you read that statement? No, I was saying very clearly that they are more interested and devoted to killing Jews than to growing food, since the Gazans destroyed all of the greenhouses. This is a simple fact which you will not acknowledge. Because your moebius strip will not go in that direction.

The same is true of MEMRI. They simply translate PLO or Hamas media. But you have a way of negating this service, simply by stating that an Israeli started it. The data you actually need, is a string of systematic mistranslations. The reason for MEMRI's success is that it is consonant with reality--the state approved media of both the PLO and Hamas say they want to kill Jews, and darn it if they don't try to do it every single day.

And then you trot out several rabbis who may have said outlandish things--assuming you actually do understand where they are coming from and what they mean--and this is not an easy task, as if we Jews a) know who they are and b) care. This is your own version of the Protocols, same method. I've said it from the first time we've fought, you aren't honest, and I'm not giving you the 8500 rocket head start that Hamas had before there was meaningful action by the IDF to try to stop it.

What was astounding was that as you continued to write, there was complete consistency with accusations, towards me or anyone else, of being guilty of the very things you yourself are doing. So a dime book of Freud will be sufficient. You call me names regarding how high handed...I was for blaming the Gazans for their own actions, but you didn't phrase it like that. You phrased it as blaming the victim. Look. In. The. Mirror. You are the one who blames the victim.

You say that I am shameless for saying 'putting the kids in the line of fire' when you say they were 'living with their parents'--and yet I provided you with a quote from a PLO legislator saying that they are proud of using kids and old folks as human shields. Look at what happened today, what were all of those explosives doing in that house? And why were the kids there? They say it on their state run media, they worship death. And yet, you put the best face on this, kids living at home, and I'm twisting reality, I'm the shameless one. Mirror, mirror on the wall.

Israelis, Caroline Glick, for one, mounts a robust and relentless critique of Israeli policy. How difficult is it to criticize a government? What you do is mount one lie and distortion on top of more lies and more distortions--and that's why I say what I say. Look at your first paragraph, one half-truth followed by another. Preventing a medical transport? That didn't happen until video footage was shown around the world of the PLOHamasIslamicJihadFatah transporting weapons inside of an ambulance. These weapons certainly weren't going to be used for the growing of food.

Last thing--and I'll completely drop what I clearly recall you saying--but for old times sake, just say flat out, those Yeshiva students were murdered and that a Yeshiva is not under any circumstances a military target. Just say the words and the matter is dropped. And if you can't do that, return to the top of the post and read it again.

Thanks for your kind comments about the integrity of my argument, anon 10:13, which I especially appreciate since I gather that you don't entirely share my overall perspective. Rare and menschlich to acknowledge the point of someone you may not agree with in general. You do us all, on both sides, a service.

I have one quibble; you say,

"Craig, you don't appear to be completely an impartial observer judging by your comments."

Now, there's no doubt that I came off well in Craig's comments. This may be due to one of four reasons: 1) My arguments were in fact better and Craig recognized this, or 2) Craig has been hopelessly hoodwinked by my crafty subterfuge, or 3) All that Wahabbi oil money I've been funneling into Craig's pocket is finally paying off, or 4) Craig started off as huge critic of Israel and finds my perspective congruent with his own.

Is there something about Craig's comments that suggests 2,3 or 4 rather than 1? Put another way, I don't think we want to say that someone's agreement is prima facie evidence of his lack of impartiality without some evidence (over and above the simple act of agreement) that there's bias afoot.

Is there something about Craig's opinion that suggests partiality rather than simple judgement?

I don't mean to speak for Craig and I apologize in advance if anything I've said attributes to him anything he does not believe.

As for you, naftali.....g'bye, but before I cast you out to the cold sea of oblivion, I can't resist rubbing your face in yet another of your huge howlers. You say,

" You start with a lie, that Israel itself destroyed 50% of the greenhouses. Nothing like that happened."

I said,

"Regarding the greenhouses, recall that about 50% of them were dismantled or rendered inoperable by their Israeli owners just before the settlers were removed from Gaza."

and here's what the Israel-friendly site I provided to you earlier but which you hadn't the interest or sense to read before embarrassing yourself yet again has to say:

"About one-quarter of Gaza's Jewish greenhouses were previously dismantled and moved to new communities in Israel by their owners." 

Now, I said 50% because I read that figure elsewhere. I should have used the smaller figure to accord with the citation I provided and you may legitimately berate me for that. So 25% were dismantled by Israeli owners-do you still wish to say that "nothing like that happened?"

My mom always told me not to pick on the clearly disadvantaged, but sometimes those fish are just asking to be shot and the barrel's so close. I'll answer to her one day, and to God. Hope God gets to me first.

By the way, who spilled the beans about Arabs caring nothing for food when there are Jews to be killed? I thought this closely guarded secret, provided to us with our mother's milk, hadn't gotten out. We delight in seeing our children starve if we can assassinate a Jew instead feeding the poor tykes, so ferocious and unyielding is our unreasoning lust for Jewish blood. We bake it into our pitas, you know.

Hey, I wonder how long it'll take for the above paragraph to find its way to MEMRI?

As I said, off you go, naftali. My indulgence for the spiritually impoverished has its limits, and you've gone through your allotment of my  charity.   

Right, 25%. The greenhouses were not dismantled my the Israeli owners. My goodness man, we are using the same source for this. First it's the Israeli government that destroyed--a certain percentage--then you change it to the owners. But you still insist that they were dismantled. They weren't. Someone turned off the sprinklers. That's it. Dismantled and destroyed is what happened after the Israelis left. They won't grow sand now.

Today five tunnels were discovered between Gaza and Egypt. Two for fuel, three for weapons. Now, why would they need fuel? Because they keep attacking the crossings and the Israeli plants that provides them with fuel.  And the fuel tunnels lead into folks' kitchens--with kids around.  What the heck is going on here?

I cannot say at all what's in the heart of each Gazan or each person living on the West Bank, and if there were one or two mind bogglingly destructive and self-destructive acts--who can explain it? But the power structures of both Gaza and the West Bank are institutional, and that seems to be policy. Israel is going to take down a checkpoint in Nablus. What do you think is going to happen within hours? This is the choice the PLO and Hamas make again and again.

If you can explain it in any other way, I'm listening. But it's not resistance to occupation--since they weren't all that upset about occupation when they were part of Jordan and Egypt--and the Jordanians and Egyptians have treated them far worse.

To me, resistance to oppression is sitting down at the lunch counter at Woolworth's during Jim Crow, not blowing up the store and everyone in it.

And I can't help but notice what statements are continually absent from your responses to me. Since we're talking again, does that mean I finally get to find out how Jordan lost its claims of sovereignty over the West Bank? Because I noticed that Syria still feels it has claims over the Golan Heights, and they were both lost to Israel in the same war.

Want to make the Yeshiva issue go away? Just say the magic words.

Mr. Craig, you ignore the scores of anti-Israel responses from a man that does NOT deny he is anti-Israel. The poster has a long history of simply stating untruths as truths and spreading Propaganda. He quite often pleads Hamas's offer of a truce, one that Hamas itself is not too clear about. He blurs the line between the use of "Palestinian" human shields to imply that Israel is targeting teenage girls. He says that he can offer reasons to target civilians of Sderot, but will not do so here.I do not feel the duty to recount every post he writes, but I also doubt your claims of impartiality, so there it is.

"He says that he can offer reasons to target civilians of Sderot, but will not do so here."

Sigh. Let me get down on all fours so I can approach Weaver at his own level. I didn't offer particular reasons in my post because I thought they'd be obvious, but no one goes broke underestimating the density of the American public, as I learn anew daily. 

Even the minimally literate can appreciate the differences between reasons, causes and justifications. My comment came in the context of my Sisyphean efforts to educate the obdurate and slack-jawed naftali regarding his repeated slander that I justify attacks on civilians, despite my having never done so, here or elsewhere. I made the unremarkable assertion that those Gazans who chose to attack Sderot had reasons for doing so (they believed it would hasten the removal of Israel's boot from their necks, they were taking revenge, etc). Note that I said nothing about their having good reasons nor a single syllable justifying their actions, which I oppose on ethical and political grounds. These points are readily apprehended by the average hamster but somehow elude poor Weaver. 

Re Hamas' truce offer, I remind Weaver that 60-65% of the Israeli public supports talking with Hamas, as do such well-known anti-Semites as Mossad's former chief and the current ministers of Transport and Infrastructure. American Zionists, both Jewish and Christian, will have none of this lily-livered sentiment, of course, preferring to play dice with the lives of the citizens of Sderot (not to mention the infinitely more vulnerable Palestinians) rather than sitting down to talk. Brave lads!

"He blurs the line between the use of "Palestinian" human shields to imply that Israel is targeting teenage girls."

This is a poorly-formed sentence. Typically, when one uses "between", one is obliged to provide two options. (As an aside, will Weaver and naftali please study a little composition before putting paw to keypad? I've given up on either of you absorbing any of the content, but you've got to agree that my prose is lapidary in its precision. The relationship between orderly prose and orderly thought is not a casual one. Trust me, it's worth the effort to learn how to organize and express your ideas clearly and without structural howlers.)

But to address what I think your point is, I don't give Israel a pass for not "targeting" teenage girls. For one thing, we have Chris Hedges' (former NYT Mideast correspondent) testimony that he witnessed Israeli troops targeting children. Note that this sort of barbarity is not specific to Israelis-occupiers of any nationality or religion become coarsened by their bad acts over time.

For another, we have the Israeli Supreme Court acknowledging the I"D"F's  longtime use of Palestinian civilians as human shields and B'Tselem's charge that, despite the Supreme Court's forbidding this cowardly practice, it continues. We have the recent (Ha'aretz?) piece wherein Israeli soldiers recount their various crimes.

Finally, levelling whole buildings in the course of the extra-judicial murders so beloved by Israel, with the predictable pulverization of the innocent, is not less morally outrageous than targeted killing. 

By the way, Weaver, love the scare caps in your first sentence. Imagine! He ADMITS to opposing Israeli policy! (much more precise than "he's anti-Israel", which means nothing). Can broiling puppies alive be far behind? 

Well, time for me to put down the sledgehammer, now that the gnat has been dispatched. S'long. 

I will admit that I may not always post the most structured prose in the comments, but then I do not work as a board propagandist as some do. I love that, again in your world view Israel is all to blame...The fact that you can quote many Jews and Israelis that are willing to try yet again to trust terrorists is not surprising, there were Jews in Warsaw that did not see the need to fight back as well. Yet, try as I might could you show me some links of Palestinians condemning the Sderot attacks? How about some Palestinians decrying the use of Arab Human shields? Or the trashing of Gaza? You can quote all day Israelis troubled with aspects of what you call occupation, but that is to be expected in a free and humanity filled society. If their were a number of Palestinians that felt the same way, a path to peace would be found.

Jeffrey, has it not occurred to you that an actual response to the specifics of my comments might be more appropriate than your free-associative ramblings?

Both of your tongues lie awful pretty. Here's a thought--while Mr. Weaver is working on his writing, you work on your reading. Your eyes did a hatchet job on the text we were both looking at yesterday. It is truly amazing how you can completely misunderstand basic sentences in Wikipedia. And there is no point in going over it again. But let's just say if there was any doubt that you just make things up out of whole cloth, if there was a fleeting thought that you might have a grain of sand of truth in what you say, that fine display of textual analysis flushed all of those thoughts to where they belong.

But I've learned by now that the more you insult everyone else, the less you actually have to say. And I guess, just doing the math, if you leave a blank space in the comment section, that would be more truthful and more informative than your usual garnished manure.

I think yesterday you were upset with Mr. Weaver for not providing citations--and in typical Ish fashion, you yourself listed a litany of falsehoods without a single citation or explanation of context. And how could you? It would just show you as a scheming liar.

Show me where 60-65% of Israelis think they should talk, negotiate, what with Hamas. That wouldn't be the poll that CAMERA thought was deceptive, would it? Did you forget to mention that? What a coincidence. Google search, Israeli Public Opinion Polls. Or would that be in order to free Gilad Shalit--what did you think they wanted to talk about, whether to tilt their heads to the left or right as Hamas slits their throats?

Chirs Hedges wouldn't be the same inarticulate guy that Chistopher Hitchens debated, and in the process showed Hedges to be an intellectual fraud, that Chris Hedges?--Google Search, Christopher Hitchens vs Chris Hedges.

The IDF's use of Human Shields? Didn't you forget to say that this event occurred during the battle in Jenin--in which the Palestinians essentially booby trapped an entire town. That was an actual battle, not some rock throwing demonstration. And didn't the IDF go door to door to minimize West Banker casualties? Did you leave that out? Must be another coincidence. The same battle in Jenin in which the West Bankers said the IDF indiscriminately shot 500 civilians--that the international press and the UN immediately believed although the IDF said the number was closer to 45 West Bank Soldiers? And the IDF was telling the truth? That Jenin?

Care to cite the issue of Haaretz you're talking about?

Levelling buildings? You mean the homes of people who have killed and wounded dozens of Israeli civilians--which you don't seem to mention anywhere in your whole pile, I mean lapidary. Or killing the planners of such murders before or after they are carried out? How dare this small country that is attacked everyday try to protect its citizens, the innocent civilians you stand up for when it is convenient.

You're going to have to start paying me as a fact checker. Unless by now it is so clear to anyone reading anywhere on this site that you are the biggest liar that ever sat at a keyboard.

Anyone reading can tell that I answered you. I asked you question in return which you ignore. I cannot see where I have told a lie or untruth yet here. I do not feel the need to link your own comments from previous posts to prove to you what you have said. As for my questions, why can you not answer them?

I was only referring to this thread of comments specifically, where I felt that Ismail was attempting a conversation and J.W. was not doing his part to further the discussion. I don't believe Ismail's politics should stand in the way of his making points. Even if he was Hitler, he would still be capable of making a valid point or two.

Anyway, I do like Ismail, and Naftali too. And I don't give a shit about Israel one way or another. Happy Godwin Day!

Craig thats really sad that you can say "I don't give a shit about Israel one way or another." I would hope you had some sort of an opinion on the subject.

Well it breaks my heart whenever we talk about this because I feel like I'm personally injuring you, but the fact remains that as much as I'd like for the Jews to have their own homeland, a lot of people seem pissed about it. And it won't affect me if they don't have a nation. So... But hey, I want you and a bunch of other people to be happy, so therein lies the conflict.

And I can't resolve it, so it's best for me to not think about it either way. 

First of all, it's not "their own homeland," it's OUR homeland, yours included, whether you recognize it or not. And second, if someone were pissed at you for something else, would you just throw in the towel because it's not worth the fight? Come on Craig, I would think you would know better.  Do you disregard all world issues you personally can not solely fix, or just some? I don't mean to be harsh, you know that, but come on Craig, really??

Our's according to whom? Because we have it on record (somewhere on this site) tales of Rabbis (or at least A rabbi) telling a converted woman that she wasn't a "real Jew" and that she was destroying Judaism because she married someone who he considered a "real Jew."

So I dunno what right you or I or any of us have to say that the homeland is mine if there are rabbis out there saying I'm not (and people that are more Jewish than me are not) "real Jews."

And second, if it's not worth the fight and I can't make a change, do I have any choice but to throw in the towel? I guess I could stick it out, but as we already said it's pointless to do so and I obviously don't think it's important enough to be considered "worth the fight." My point is, I sure can relate to Palestinians who are pissed off about having a third party come into their land, divvying it up, and making it the Jewish homeland.

And I already have a homeland, it's the good old United States. I don't need another one. Maybe you do, so I want Israel to exist for you. But it seems like a lot of people are pissed off about you having one, so, maybe if you never wanted one, too, people would stop being so pissed off. And people would stop blowing shit up.

...If they didn't, of course, then we'd at least have an enemy to fight.

That scene in Support Your Local Sheriff, Garner's having lunch, a fight breaks out, he stops the fight and moves to a place to finish lunch and lets the fight continue--love the movie, love the metaphor.

But Craig, are you saying that the woman converted to Judaism or away from Judaism? If it's to then the rabbi is flat out wrong about what he said. Not a small problem we have--rabbi's being flat out wrong about law. If it's away from Judaism--then he's just not feeling empathy or understanding for the whole of this woman, and he's wrong on that count too. So, I'd just dismiss that incident as being indicative of anything other than rabbinic incompetence.

Please continue your discussion with Maayan.

This topic is in fact quite important to me, this is true. But not because I am in anyway unhappy with where I reside, it's because as a Jew (and by Jew I refer not only to someone who's genetic background is from Jewish descent, but someone who accepts the religion, the culture, and practices it's morals, even if in one's own way), this piece of land is Biblically and culturally important to ME. This does not say that I need two homelands, it only means that for me, as a Jew, I need Israel to exist for so many reasons. Craig, if I solely decided that that I didn't "want Israel to exist for me," this would not change history, this would not change the minds of the entire Jewish race. Israel is a state presently belonging to the Jews and whether I want it to or not would not make the Palestinians less "pissed off." If Jews were to suddenly decide they didn't need the state of Israel and agreed to never occupy it it would be a sad day, a day the counteracted everything the Jewish race has fought for for many years. We didn't just randomly pick this piece of land and claim it as a Jewish homeland simply because we dislikes the Palestinians.

Craig, you are a Jew, whether you chose to practice the faith, whether you care if Israel exists,or even if some deranged Rabbi tells you that you are not "Jewish enough" to be a Jew(who can tell you that you are not Jewish enough). Saying someone is not a Jew, as this Rabbi did that you mentioned would mean that my many adopted cousins are not Jewish because they were not born into the religion. Or my friends with one Jewish parent, who went to Jewish day school and had bnai' Mitzvah's are not Jewish. Yet my cousins were raised Jewish, identify with being Jewish just as they identify their parents as mom and dad. You are a Jew because your ancestors were, you do not have to be religious, you do not have to go to synagogue, you don't even have to give a damn, not one will force you (I hope), but you are a Jew either way. I know this. I say this, not as a rabbi or anyone with "rabbinical" power, but as another Jew, who culturally, spiritually and religiously, proudly identifies as being Jewish. I wish you could understand.

The Rabbi's name was "Schwartzie," and I found the post with Izzy's help. Read the whole link, it's infuriating. Apparently the details are that the girl's Japanese mother converted (but not through an ORTHODOX conversion) when she married the girl's father and the girl was raised Jewish. BUT NOT JEWISH ENOUGH to continue hanging out with the Jew's of Schwartzie's "Chai Center."

So, anyway the point is, how are you guys right to say that Schwartzie is wrong? I mean, I think he's wrong. And I think he's a blowhard. And his text message-style of emailing is obnoxious as well. But maybe he's pissed off because there are too many bleeding hearts and artists running around corrupting Judaism into some feel-good lovefest. It really sounds desirable and all that, but I mean, is the old-testament really meant to be desirable? I'm afraid that, being that God hasn't spoken definitively to humanity for some time, the most trustworthy literature on the subject comes from long ago.

I don't see how it is up to us to say with such certainty that "You are a Jew because your ancestors were." If Henry Drummond were here he'd say (and I paraphrase..), "So, you...through oratory or legislature or whatever, you pass on God's orders to the rest of the world! Well, meet the Prophet from [Pennsylvania]!"

Ma'ayan, you say that it would be sad if all the Israelites decided they didn't need the state of Israel and decided to stop occupying it. I don't see why. The only reason I seem able to divine is that they've been fighting over it for eons and eons and, well, that kind of sucks to just give up. Agreed, does suck. But it sucks less than fighting if you ask me. And if they all just agreed that they didn't need it anymore, then why fight?

The place may be culturally important to you because you have a sense of devotion to your own history (I have less of one, and don't feel that I am the worse for it, but you are within your rights to want one). If the land Israel is on became Palestine, then I would certainly expect you to be within your rights to go visit it and worship the sacred parts of your cultural identity there. If you are denied entry, or experience state-sanctioned bigotry, well then Palestine would need to face the repercussions of this on the global stage. But no one could argue that you were doing anything wrong.

(Again, not that the Israelis are wrong for being there now. In my mind, you pick your battles, though, and that's just not one I want to fight. Let's not let this devolve into, "Oh, well the Palestinians are wrong for committing acts of terrorism against the State of Israel." They sure are. But if they're doing that, they're a bunch of fucking freaks anyway, and I sure have no means with which to argue them.)

For the record, I consider myself Jewish enough to have a big nose, score a job at a Jewish magazine, and experience crippling irritable bowel syndrome. But not much else. 

Maayan,

At first you said Israel was "OUR" homeland, then you said "this piece of land is Biblically and culturally important to ME." Which of those capitalized words represents your perspective? Because many Jews -- many, many, many, many Jews, Jews who are ethnically, culturally, religiously and even nationally proud -- do not consider Israel to be their homeland or even the homeland of all Jews. This in no way diminishes their Jewishness. There are those who find the insistence that Israel take center stage in our consciousness to be more than a litte off-putting, even propagandistic.

Not me, of course. I LOVE ISRAELLLLLLLL!!!!!! LOL ROTFL

First, the basic halacha--a convert is to be treated no differently than someone born Jewish--from the Torah, and I'm not in the mood to look it up--but if I have to, I will cite chapter and verse. That's the to Judaism. Let's say the rabbi didn't like the conversion. Happens all of the time. One of the reasons for our exile is a lack of what is termed 'baseless chesed', instead there was 'baseless hatred'. In other words, we treated each other then the way we pretty much treat each other now. That would be from the Gemara, and is much, much, much harder to find. Again, I could do it, cite the spot, but it might take more than a month. 'Baseless Chesed' is the opposite--feeling a deep lovingkindness for others for no reason whatsoever. This is to be strived for--since, it's really hard to do. Anyway, the point is, there is scriptual basis for the statement that the rabbi is wrong. And that scripture should be our code of conduct, so to speak, but it's not. For a rabbi, that's their implied statement--our scripture is my code of conduct. So, essentially, that rabbi was violating his code of conduct.

He could write in and debate his side, but he's arguing from a weakened position. It would of course be a boring biblical argument--but I assure you, the most he could mount would be a house of cards.

Yep, no need for scripture, I believe you. So we've established why the Rabbi is not only a bag of douche but a bad Jew. No argument there. I am really concerned (for myself) about the state of my own morality as to why I should care if Israel succeeds.