When Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, I supported it. All 9000 Jews were removed (some forcibly) from their homes. Greenhouses, synagogues, gas stations, anything that was owned by Jews or Israel was dismantled. Gazans destroyed much of what was left behind. The Jews used the media to promote their causes, and it was terrible to watch them weep as they were removed from their homes and put on buses. And it was terrible to see the young soldiers execute their cruel orders. I supported it because I felt that the Palestinians have a right to their own state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The peace process had been stalled for years while the intifada was going on, and I felt that this was one giant step towards peace. There were no negotiations, no deals, just Israel handing over the land to the Palestinians.
One year later Hamas won the Palestinian elections, and a year after that Hamas expelled all Fatah members from the Strip. This coup by a terrorist group (Israel was already not thrilled that Hamas was in the government) led to an international boycott of the Strip. This boycott prompted Hamas to increase their rocket fire into Israel. (The rockets began in 2001, but were frequent starting in 2004.) So for a number of years, Israeli citizens were subject to indiscriminate rocket fire. About 15 Israelis were killed, many wounded, and many more suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Additionally, many Palestinians were killed in Gaza as a result of weapons that detonated early or that fell short, and Israeli assaults on the Strip on account of the rockets.
I visited the town of Sderot, which has received a majority of the rockets. I have described it as being my own living nightmare. I also visited the town where the Gaza Jews were relocated. Their pain is still fresh, and they live in very small bungalows with their large families.
That day I realized what an all-around intolerable situation it was: Gaza Jews are removed by their own government, Israelis near Gaza suffer rocket attacks, and Gazans are trapped in what has been described as an “open sewer.” That day I changed my mind about the withdrawal. It had caused great pain for thousands of Jews, and brought no rewards to Israel. The Gazans as well don’t seem to have benefited much from the loss of the Jews (though perhaps they gained some dignity for having their land free of occupation.) I don’t think this could have been predicted in 2005, though.
I don’t know if the Jews should have stayed in Gaza or not, or if Israel should have done something about Hamas being in the government, or if the blockade is useful. What I do know is that we’ve come to a problem of ideology versus practicality. The Jews were removed for reasons of ideology, as if the act itself would usher in some divine series of events which would lead to peace. Gaza is blockaded because of ideology, and rockets are fired for ideology. None of these things have gained anything positive for anyone. But what about reality? What about the Gazans who suffer from the blockade and because their leaders refuse to renounce violence? What about the settlers who long to return to their old homes? What about the residents of Sderot who spend their days in fear? This is not normal for anyone!
When faced with this dilemma of ideology versus practicality, I side with practicality. The settlers, Gazans, and Israelis near Gaza all suffer because of ideology. I wish that Jews could live wherever they wanted. When Gaza becomes part of the State of Palestine—which we all know by now that it will—it would be up to the government of Palestine whether to give citizenship to its Jewish residents, and it would be up to the settlers to decide whether they want to live in an Arab country. Perhaps they could live there as Israelis living abroad. If the Jews were still there, I doubt Israel would blockade it. There has to be a reasonable balance between ideology and practicality. It is good to be guided by a set of ideals, but sometimes the time isn’t ripe for them to be enacted. For some ideas there will never be a ripe time. I think a Palestinian state free of Jews is a fine idea, but would make a horrible reality.
This conflict between ideology and practicality has played out again and again in the Middle East. It has led to endless conflict, and is an excuse to slow everything down. Clearly, doing things according to ideology doesn’t work, and neither does citing practicality as an excuse for not moving forward. Israel and Palestine’s leaders need to step up to the plate and get this resolved in a moderate and just way. I will not go into what that way is, but most Israelis and Palestinians know what it will look like.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Cultural Learnings 12.0 (Israel Here & There)
The Palestinain-Israeli conflict has been going on since before Israel’s creation in 1948, and has claimed thousands of lives. It appears to be what we would call “intractable.” But the Conflict itself takes on new, contradictory meaning when you’re in Israel. It becomes both more real and important, and less real and important.
When you’re there, things fall into place. Everything you learned regarding the Conflict begins to make sense. Violence is no longer a 30-second bit on the news, but rather possibly sitting next to you on the bus. You can see how tiny the land is, how traumatizing it is to evict people, how communities work.
But it also loses all its meaning. As much as people fight passionately for their side of the Conflict, you don’t see much of that in Israel. You learn to ride the bus without getting off whenever an Arab with a duffle bag gets on. Jews and Arabs interact in a completely mundane way—together on the bus, at the grocery store, at the ATM. As much effort as we in America put into arguing, that doesn’t really happen over there. In Israel people are concerned with their health, their kids, work; you know, normal things. I’d forgotten about that over here.
Understanding Israelis and Palestinians also helps to make sense of the Conflict. Israelis are a very paranoid people, sometimes for good reason. They don’t trust the Arab leadership, but neither do the Arabs! Israelis always assume someone is trying to screw them over. If there is a space in the lane next to you, you cut in. If you don’t, someone else will. There are no lines; rather, whoever wiggles their way to the counter gets helped first. If you’re not pushing, you obviously aren’t trying too hard to get what you want. Ironically, there is no concept of “I was here first.” Israelis are in everyone’s business. They ask fat women when they’re due (regardless of pregnancy status,) they want to know where you got those shoes, and “Are you married? Do you have a boyfriend? Why not? I have a cousin you should meet,” is a common third sentence among people who have just met. That’s just how they are.
And this explains some of the Conflict. Imagine negotiating with someone who thinks you’re trying to screw them over. Israel is the most progressive country in the Middle East, but there will always be a conservative undercurrent. It is a country of ideologues, where everyone has an opinion which is indisputably correct. And if you want someone else to listen to your damn opinion, you’d better yell. If you listen politely, it means you don’t have anything to say. If you’re not arguing, you must be agreeing. Even if you’re agreeing, you still have to yell!
You have to be aggressive to survive a day in Israel. You have to demand what you want. You have to shout, you have to push. You might even forget that it’s not like that everywhere. In some places it’s ok to just listen. In some places you will be helped in the order in which you arrived, without any exertion on your part. And that’s why the Conflict looks different when you’re here or there. Here if someone’s shouting it means they’re serious; there it just means you have to shout back to make them listen.
In Israel there is a party for every opinion. Everyone wants their concerns voiced. It’s not like that in the rest of the world. Sometimes you have to “compromise.” There is a way of getting what you want out of an Israeli, you just have to act like one. But is Palestinian culture so different after all these years that they don’t know how to get what they want from each other? I dunno! Shit’s intractable, remember?
I didn’t meet many Palestinians in Israel. I lived in East Jerusalem with many Arab neighborhoods close by. I interacted with Arabs on the street, on the bus, and in restaurants, but I never talked to any about politics. No one talks about politics. I heard a few lectures on my program, but the fact that someone was being paid to talk about politics in Israel is already suspicious. From things I’ve learned, I think Palestinians are holding on to things that they need to let go—they’re not going to get all that they’re asking for now. They need to focus on what they can get out of negotiations.
When I’m in California, the Conflict is all-consuming. Everyone freaks out about everything Netenyahu does. After all, he is the leader of the only Jewish state in the world. But in Israel, he’s just another big-mouthed politician; no one takes him seriously. In Israel I felt free to criticize Israeli policies. Things are so polarized here that I feel like since the Other Side won’t admit any wrong, that I can’t admit any wrong. In Israel I didn’t have a voice—I’m not a citizen and I can barely speak Hebrew anyway, who cares what I think? But here I represent world Jewry. My Side can’t be divided, so I have to go along with everyone else even when I don’t agree.
If you don’t understand Israeli culture, you can’t understand the Conflict. Will understanding the Conflict solve it? Probably not. At this point, I don’t even know if being in Israel helps or hurts your understanding. What I’m trying to say is, sometimes you have to be IN the Conflict in order to live outside of it.
When you’re there, things fall into place. Everything you learned regarding the Conflict begins to make sense. Violence is no longer a 30-second bit on the news, but rather possibly sitting next to you on the bus. You can see how tiny the land is, how traumatizing it is to evict people, how communities work.
But it also loses all its meaning. As much as people fight passionately for their side of the Conflict, you don’t see much of that in Israel. You learn to ride the bus without getting off whenever an Arab with a duffle bag gets on. Jews and Arabs interact in a completely mundane way—together on the bus, at the grocery store, at the ATM. As much effort as we in America put into arguing, that doesn’t really happen over there. In Israel people are concerned with their health, their kids, work; you know, normal things. I’d forgotten about that over here.
Understanding Israelis and Palestinians also helps to make sense of the Conflict. Israelis are a very paranoid people, sometimes for good reason. They don’t trust the Arab leadership, but neither do the Arabs! Israelis always assume someone is trying to screw them over. If there is a space in the lane next to you, you cut in. If you don’t, someone else will. There are no lines; rather, whoever wiggles their way to the counter gets helped first. If you’re not pushing, you obviously aren’t trying too hard to get what you want. Ironically, there is no concept of “I was here first.” Israelis are in everyone’s business. They ask fat women when they’re due (regardless of pregnancy status,) they want to know where you got those shoes, and “Are you married? Do you have a boyfriend? Why not? I have a cousin you should meet,” is a common third sentence among people who have just met. That’s just how they are.
And this explains some of the Conflict. Imagine negotiating with someone who thinks you’re trying to screw them over. Israel is the most progressive country in the Middle East, but there will always be a conservative undercurrent. It is a country of ideologues, where everyone has an opinion which is indisputably correct. And if you want someone else to listen to your damn opinion, you’d better yell. If you listen politely, it means you don’t have anything to say. If you’re not arguing, you must be agreeing. Even if you’re agreeing, you still have to yell!
You have to be aggressive to survive a day in Israel. You have to demand what you want. You have to shout, you have to push. You might even forget that it’s not like that everywhere. In some places it’s ok to just listen. In some places you will be helped in the order in which you arrived, without any exertion on your part. And that’s why the Conflict looks different when you’re here or there. Here if someone’s shouting it means they’re serious; there it just means you have to shout back to make them listen.
In Israel there is a party for every opinion. Everyone wants their concerns voiced. It’s not like that in the rest of the world. Sometimes you have to “compromise.” There is a way of getting what you want out of an Israeli, you just have to act like one. But is Palestinian culture so different after all these years that they don’t know how to get what they want from each other? I dunno! Shit’s intractable, remember?
I didn’t meet many Palestinians in Israel. I lived in East Jerusalem with many Arab neighborhoods close by. I interacted with Arabs on the street, on the bus, and in restaurants, but I never talked to any about politics. No one talks about politics. I heard a few lectures on my program, but the fact that someone was being paid to talk about politics in Israel is already suspicious. From things I’ve learned, I think Palestinians are holding on to things that they need to let go—they’re not going to get all that they’re asking for now. They need to focus on what they can get out of negotiations.
When I’m in California, the Conflict is all-consuming. Everyone freaks out about everything Netenyahu does. After all, he is the leader of the only Jewish state in the world. But in Israel, he’s just another big-mouthed politician; no one takes him seriously. In Israel I felt free to criticize Israeli policies. Things are so polarized here that I feel like since the Other Side won’t admit any wrong, that I can’t admit any wrong. In Israel I didn’t have a voice—I’m not a citizen and I can barely speak Hebrew anyway, who cares what I think? But here I represent world Jewry. My Side can’t be divided, so I have to go along with everyone else even when I don’t agree.
If you don’t understand Israeli culture, you can’t understand the Conflict. Will understanding the Conflict solve it? Probably not. At this point, I don’t even know if being in Israel helps or hurts your understanding. What I’m trying to say is, sometimes you have to be IN the Conflict in order to live outside of it.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Israel: FML! part 2
News sources are supposed to be “fair and balanced,” to quote a media conglomerate that is neither. The news should be free of bias. There are guiding principles of journalism which ensure fair coverage. But what happens when a newspaper is biased? What happens when it quotes its own staff? Nothing! People still read it! This is what happens at al-Jazeera English (AJE).
Many of the articles found on al-Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net) seem fair and informative. It often runs articles which focus on more international situations, rather than domestic or regional issues. Some of AJE’s practices, however, are less than newsworthy. There are two main methods to which I object: quoting your own staff, and being ridiculous about Israel.
AJE quotes its own staff. An article will lack a by-line, and then quote the al-Jazeera correspondent in that area. Many articles follow the format of an initial presentation of the facts, followed by a quote from either an “al-Jazeera correspondent" or someone else. Here is a quote from a recent article about the Fatah conference in Bethlehem:
And here is another one, about Honduras’ ousted leader:
Neither of these correspondents is saying anything particularly inflammatory, but it still raises concerns that a newspaper would quote its own people.
My second main concern with AJE is its negative portrayal of Israel. Some news sources may be more pro-Palestine than pro-Israel, but AJE goes beyond the pale. I have never read an article supporting Israel in any way, or one that criticizes Palestinians or their leadership. Is it possible that Israel has never done anything good in the past year that I’ve been reading AJE? Is it possible that the Palestinians have not made a single mistake? In addition to being one-sided, AJE enjoys criticizing American politics (don’t we all!), especially as pertains to Jews.
In one alarming article, AJE reports on how the “Israel lobby” caused Charles Freeman to rescind his candidacy for a US intelligence post. Worse than quoting their own staff, AJE quotes some shmuck from The Daily Beast blog. Here’s his quote:
Crazy, right? It’s as if a murky group of Jews got together and had some sort of –I don’t know—conspiracy! Nowhere in the article (which you should read, if you read any of the links) does it name anyone or any organizations which might be part of this “Israel lobby.” And in case you don’t see where I’m going with this, let me spell it out for you: accusing Jews of evil conspiracies is an old form of anti-Semitism which started with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forged “historical” document supposedly detailing a Jewish plot to take over the world.
Another article presents one Palestinian man’s amateur collection of Holocaust pictures as a museum. The so-called curator is called an “academic,” though no titles or information about his education are mentioned. Images of the Holocaust are juxtaposed with Palestinian suffering, and others suggest that Israel was created as a direct result of the Holocaust. One picture in the museum includes the caption “Make your final account with Hitler and the Nazi Germans, not with the Palestinians." This is an ignorant and outrageous statement to make: Hitler died in the 40’s, the Nazi party is banned in many places, and Germany and Israel have a warm diplomatic and economic relationship. The museum claims Palestinians are “paying” for the Holocaust. Presenting the Holocaust in such a way is a fraudulent and misleading account, and it cannot serve to enlighten or educate in an accurate way. Arab countries promote ignorance about the Holocaust, and many have never heard of it or think it was fabricated or exaggerated. I don’t think any countries deny or fail to acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians (especially at the hands of Israel,) though many Palestinians feel their plight is not sufficiently recognized. It is inappropriate and ignorant to merge the two situations without extensive context. In short, this Holocaust museum will not inspire tolerance. It also claims that Israelis visit the museum, but Israelis are not allowed into the West Bank.
The article—which meets no journalistic standards—about Israeli PM Netenyahu’s speech acknowledging the need for a Palestinian state was so inflammatory that I will have to exercise extreme restraint in not repeating it in its entirety. Here are six quotes, from each of the six sections, with their given subject:
AJE’s complete rejection of Netenyahu’s speech is nothing short of tragic. Instead of appreciating Netenyahu making a bold step (for him,) AJE condemns Netenyahu, slams Israel, and dismisses the entire way negotiations work. His speech was not meant as a final offer, but as a first step towards peace. He had refused to acknowledge the need for two states for weeks, and this was the first time he admitted it. Without this speech, any kind of negotiations would be impossible. You don’t have to like everything he said, but you can’t deny how important it was for him to recognize the need for a Palestinian state.
In the next article that I will tear to shreds, AJE’s Jerusalem correspondent Jacky Rowland describes how Israel is manipulating history itself. It claims that Israel is using antiquities to redefine history in favor of the Jews (a Jewish plot??) Additionally, the same people who run one of the sites (supposedly) also buy land in Silwan, thereby “dispossessing” Palestinians (further evidence of a plot.) The article was listed in the commentary and analysis section, but it’s still offensive to anyone who is looking for legitimate reporting.
The Arab world is prone to believing conspiracy theories, and AJE (I don’t even want to know what the Arabic version is saying) capitalizes on that. It regularly refers to Israel as “Tel Aviv,” instead of by its capital Jerusalem. In addition to their blatant anti-Israel bias (try reading the series about the PLO—“History of a Revolution”), AJE simply fails multiple tests of journalism. And if this is what’s happening in English, what are they saying in Arabic? If articles about Israel lack credibility, what does that say about stories on other regions? My reaction to their stories on Israel ranges from disappointed to horrified.
Many of the articles found on al-Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net) seem fair and informative. It often runs articles which focus on more international situations, rather than domestic or regional issues. Some of AJE’s practices, however, are less than newsworthy. There are two main methods to which I object: quoting your own staff, and being ridiculous about Israel.
AJE quotes its own staff. An article will lack a by-line, and then quote the al-Jazeera correspondent in that area. Many articles follow the format of an initial presentation of the facts, followed by a quote from either an “al-Jazeera correspondent" or someone else. Here is a quote from a recent article about the Fatah conference in Bethlehem:
Al Jazeera's Nour Odeh, reporting from outside the conference centre in the West Bank town, said Abbas' words were an attempt to appeal to a movement divided over how it should proceed.
"The kind of heritage that Fatah carries is based on the fact that it led armed resistance. It would have been very difficult to conceive of Mahmoud Abbas disowning that legacy," she said.
"The division in Fatah is not only generational, it is also about the tactics of the movement - where it must move forward, how it must deal with Hamas and the division, and how it must deal with Israel."
And here is another one, about Honduras’ ousted leader:
Mariana Sanchez, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Mexico City said: "Mexico is considered the big brother of Central America so it is very important for Zelaya to come here and get the support of Calderon.
"Zelaya is launching what he has called a diplomatic crusade. He needs the presidents of Latin American to continue voicing their support. He intends to go to Brazil in the next few days another very important country."
Neither of these correspondents is saying anything particularly inflammatory, but it still raises concerns that a newspaper would quote its own people.
My second main concern with AJE is its negative portrayal of Israel. Some news sources may be more pro-Palestine than pro-Israel, but AJE goes beyond the pale. I have never read an article supporting Israel in any way, or one that criticizes Palestinians or their leadership. Is it possible that Israel has never done anything good in the past year that I’ve been reading AJE? Is it possible that the Palestinians have not made a single mistake? In addition to being one-sided, AJE enjoys criticizing American politics (don’t we all!), especially as pertains to Jews.
In one alarming article, AJE reports on how the “Israel lobby” caused Charles Freeman to rescind his candidacy for a US intelligence post. Worse than quoting their own staff, AJE quotes some shmuck from The Daily Beast blog. Here’s his quote:
Max Blumenthal, a blogger and journalist for the Daily Beast website who has been following Freeman's nomination process, told Al Jazeera that his withdrawal was "a catastrophic defeat for the Obama administration".
"What happened is the Israel lobby won," he said.
"What [Freeman] said that I think is most remarkable in his statement, is that apparently the Obama administration will not be able to dictate its own Mideast policy and he places the blame for this squarely on the Israel lobby."
Blumenthal said that the Israel lobby had "been furiously emailing sympathetic reporters, smearing him [Freeman] in public" and that "political decisions came into play with respect to [Freeman's] views on Israel and essentially his appointment was torpedoed".
This was the Israel lobby's "first all-out fusillade and they succeeded because they knew that Freeman would be dispensable to political elements in the White House that needed to court the Israel lobby, needed their money for senate races", he said.
Crazy, right? It’s as if a murky group of Jews got together and had some sort of –I don’t know—conspiracy! Nowhere in the article (which you should read, if you read any of the links) does it name anyone or any organizations which might be part of this “Israel lobby.” And in case you don’t see where I’m going with this, let me spell it out for you: accusing Jews of evil conspiracies is an old form of anti-Semitism which started with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forged “historical” document supposedly detailing a Jewish plot to take over the world.
Another article presents one Palestinian man’s amateur collection of Holocaust pictures as a museum. The so-called curator is called an “academic,” though no titles or information about his education are mentioned. Images of the Holocaust are juxtaposed with Palestinian suffering, and others suggest that Israel was created as a direct result of the Holocaust. One picture in the museum includes the caption “Make your final account with Hitler and the Nazi Germans, not with the Palestinians." This is an ignorant and outrageous statement to make: Hitler died in the 40’s, the Nazi party is banned in many places, and Germany and Israel have a warm diplomatic and economic relationship. The museum claims Palestinians are “paying” for the Holocaust. Presenting the Holocaust in such a way is a fraudulent and misleading account, and it cannot serve to enlighten or educate in an accurate way. Arab countries promote ignorance about the Holocaust, and many have never heard of it or think it was fabricated or exaggerated. I don’t think any countries deny or fail to acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians (especially at the hands of Israel,) though many Palestinians feel their plight is not sufficiently recognized. It is inappropriate and ignorant to merge the two situations without extensive context. In short, this Holocaust museum will not inspire tolerance. It also claims that Israelis visit the museum, but Israelis are not allowed into the West Bank.
The article—which meets no journalistic standards—about Israeli PM Netenyahu’s speech acknowledging the need for a Palestinian state was so inflammatory that I will have to exercise extreme restraint in not repeating it in its entirety. Here are six quotes, from each of the six sections, with their given subject:
In the tradition of victorious colonialists, Netanyahu's vision for the future emanates from a self-entitlement to rewrite history and to determine the fate of his defeated subjects.
Revisionist history
In other words, the presence of Palestinians in their lands is portrayed as an accident of history – thus annulling in one speech their history and stripping them of their legal, let alone their national, rights.
‘Jewish homeland’
Asking the Arabs and the Palestinians to recognise that Israel is the historic "Jewish homeland" is paramount to demanding that the Arab, Muslim and Palestinians themselves recant their own history, roots and identity.
Palestinian state
His demand for a "demilitarised state" is thus a logical demand, for how else can Netanyahu and Israel and its future leaders ensure the total subordination of future Palestinian generations who will be borne into a perpetual prison in the guise of statehood?
Breakdown of spirit
Netanyahu is after a moral and psychological breakdown of the Palestinian spirit. Breaking the spirit of a nation is not achieved solely through depriving Palestinians of the right to resist or of their right to self-defence, but by forcing the Palestinians to relinquish their memory.
‘Simple truth’
Netanyahu's narrative, long propagated by the Israeli right wing and extremist Zionists, is that the establishment of Israel was an exercise of the right of the Jewish people to their natural homeland - Israel bears no responsibility for the Palestinian refugees and finally there was never a problem of dispossession and occupation.
AJE’s complete rejection of Netenyahu’s speech is nothing short of tragic. Instead of appreciating Netenyahu making a bold step (for him,) AJE condemns Netenyahu, slams Israel, and dismisses the entire way negotiations work. His speech was not meant as a final offer, but as a first step towards peace. He had refused to acknowledge the need for two states for weeks, and this was the first time he admitted it. Without this speech, any kind of negotiations would be impossible. You don’t have to like everything he said, but you can’t deny how important it was for him to recognize the need for a Palestinian state.
In the next article that I will tear to shreds, AJE’s Jerusalem correspondent Jacky Rowland describes how Israel is manipulating history itself. It claims that Israel is using antiquities to redefine history in favor of the Jews (a Jewish plot??) Additionally, the same people who run one of the sites (supposedly) also buy land in Silwan, thereby “dispossessing” Palestinians (further evidence of a plot.) The article was listed in the commentary and analysis section, but it’s still offensive to anyone who is looking for legitimate reporting.
The Arab world is prone to believing conspiracy theories, and AJE (I don’t even want to know what the Arabic version is saying) capitalizes on that. It regularly refers to Israel as “Tel Aviv,” instead of by its capital Jerusalem. In addition to their blatant anti-Israel bias (try reading the series about the PLO—“History of a Revolution”), AJE simply fails multiple tests of journalism. And if this is what’s happening in English, what are they saying in Arabic? If articles about Israel lack credibility, what does that say about stories on other regions? My reaction to their stories on Israel ranges from disappointed to horrified.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Israel: FML! part 1
I regret not citing a source for these, but during the war I kept a list of accusations against
Next on my list is the use of white phosphorus, which proved to be true. White phosphorus is a chemical agent which creates a lot of smoke when it burns, and it is internationally allowed to be used for cover in open spaces. Unfortunately, there aren’t too many wide open spaces in
Then there is the more general accusation of “war crimes.”
Amnesty International accused
In an Al Jazeera article which I regret not dating, IDF soldiers reportedly “laughed as they opened fire.”
Haaretz.com reported on January 31, 2009, that “A Brussles-based research group accused
Human Rights Watch blasted
(Haaretz.com’s search engine is useless, and Jpost.com makes you pay for old articles. Rip off!)
So depleted uranium did not happen, white phosphorus did, war crimes have possibly been committed—although Israel doesn’t want to cooperate with groups it know will condemn it, and laughing while killing is just ridiculous.
Of course,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)