Comments on: The sound of silence

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 23 May 2004 23:18:42 +0000

Chris Bertram

Jonathan, I linked to you because your coverage is normally fair-minded and even-handed, though I often disagree with it.

Bro if you don’t think Jonathan is ‘fair’ than you are 1 biased person yourself. He goes out of his way to promote rights for Arabs and Palestinians and unilateral withdrawal. In fact I doubt there is an Arab Weblog that displays key ruling in favor of the Arabs in Israel as much as Jonathan.

The Haaretz account says “IDF tanks fired shells at a crowd of protesters” and the IDF denies this was so. You say on your blog that you are willing to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt. In your comment here you seem more accepting of their version that that. Obviously, neither you, nor I nor anyone not there can at this stage adjudicate between competing versions…..

KEY PART -

But, given that IDF statements immediately after such incidents in the past have turned out to be inaccurate and self-serving (and I mentioned Qana) I don’t see why anyone should follow you in benefit-of-doubt-giving.

You must be kidding me if you can even state that with any kind of surity bordering on arrogance it sounds. A) Have you ever read the IPC PLO news site? Its a joke. Its like a cheap propaganda site out of the 1700’s. B) Jenin.. C) “The Israelis must have blown up the American convoy in the Gaza Strip” Recent report says Arafat and the PLO gave the go ahead, as if common sense didn’t tell you this. D) “It didn’t happen it all a clever Israeli lie” but sir we have the captain of the ship, a Palestinian who says so, and the weapons on videotape showing right now… “I am telling you the Israelis are deceiving you, you know they lie too. We need to convene a joint investigation with the UN to get to the bottom of this” Abdel Rahman on Oreilly after the Karine A PRESENT - 1) There were 20 dead and most teenagers and civilians…. 7 Dead at least 5 were gunmen. Reports the Palestinians took bodies from the Morgue to try and trick and inflate the numbers. 2) 2 Palestinian teenage siblings were killed by Israeli gunshots Palis say. Israelis say they are investigating and that a Palestinian planting a bomb there at the time. Pali doctor “says there are only gunshot wounds no mortar wounds” HOW MUCH YOU WANNA BET ON AN OFFER OF AN AUTOPSY? 3) Palestinians say as reported by Amy Kellog on Fox, that a 5 year old was shot and killed when she “went out to buy candy with her friends” (Right there you know its a lie.. “to buy candy”) Israelis say there was NO SHOOTING WHATSOEVER OR PRESENCE in that area at the time. 4) Palestinians say some 40 homes and structures have been destroyed Kellog of Fox News states “her sources” have told her it looks like an ‘earthquake’ hit the area…. Israelis state that 5 have been destroyed including the home of the Sonny Corleone assassins of 4 girls aged 2-12 and their mother and 8 month fetus which was shot in the stomach to make sure he died as well. Israelis say they are showing footage of structures that were destroyed 2 and 3 years ago. 5) A bomb exploded today in the West Bank and 2 Palestinians were killed. The Palestinians immediately said it was due to Israeli fire, assumably from the air? or a mysterious planted bomb? The Israelis and most agree that it was a Palestinian bombmaker that went off yet prematurely again. 6) Finally, the biggest lie that was the gasoline to the Intifadah… Mohammed al-dura. Now that’s not counting all the other lies like the Palis didn’t cheer on 9/11, except some ‘poor Palestinians’ that were paid and given sweets by deceptive ‘evil’ Israelis… This comical farce is pumped out even to this day by Pali spokeman. Outside of common sense of the poor liars they are (say as opposed to the slick Chinese and old Soviets, their trainers) I recently heard a Palestinian reporter speak who said forget some celebrating you could hear the celebrations from the Territories and Ramalla from miles away. So one asks with all these lies how can reporters continue to cite Pali “sources” with any credibility while instead subjecting the IDF reports with the intense skepticism. And how is it that when blatant lies are put forth, Karine A etc.. they are pooh poohed as just the poor Palis etc… yet the next lie if at all believable like Rafah deaths and home destructions exagerrations and falsifications… are either given equal weight as “differing accounts” or given all the weight as all recent reports about Rafah. So one asks some vexing questions? 1) How is it that a culture and people for the most part publically at least all go along pose, preen and lie for the cameras and Western assumably educated reporters continue to suck them down (get paid for them too) these continually proven lies while in Israel every word is questioned by the general population? What does that say about the PLO and the Palis? 2) Will this effect future credence given to Pali ‘sources’? Jenin didn’t seem to make a dent, as did neither the Karine A, Mohammed al-Dura, the murdering of the American Convoy etc… 3) Or will it just continue that an effective propaganda campaign as taught to them by the Viet Cong, will continue to work beautifully. As the gambler who always comes back for more, will Western sources continue to give credence to the possibility or likelihood that ‘this time’ the “Nazi” Israelis really did do it, ignore the ‘Big Lies’ of the past… This time I’m really gonna get rich at the Casino, this time the Palis must really be telling the truth…. everyone seems to be writing it…. the doctor wouldn’t lie about the wounds to the 5 year old killed, about Mohammed al-dura’s wounds, and they wouldn’t take dead animals and dig up bodies and dump them in Jenin or bring bodies from the Morgue to inflate the body count on Day 1 in Rafah to make world headlines???? WHY NOT? IT WORKS! And even if proven false it can simply be chalked up to “differing war accounts” and the image of the Nazi Israelis is made in the immediacy effect anyway. Its really easy to create a mess and takes a long time to clean it up… Mike

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 23 May 2004 23:14:53 +0000

Chris Bertram

Jonathan, I linked to you because your coverage is normally fair-minded and even-handed, though I often disagree with it.

The Haaretz account says “IDF tanks fired shells at a crowd of protesters” and the IDF denies this was so. You say on your blog that you are willing to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt. In your comment here you seem more accepting of their version that that. Obviously, neither you, nor I nor anyone not there can at this stage adjudicate between competing versions…..

KEY PART -

But, given that IDF statements immediately after such incidents in the past have turned out to be inaccurate and self-serving (and I mentioned Qana) I don’t see why anyone should follow you in benefit-of-doubt-giving.

You must be kidding me if you can even state that with any kind of surity bordering on arrogance it sounds. A) Have you ever read the IPC PLO news site? Its a joke. Its like a cheap propaganda site out of the 1700’s. B)Jenin? C) “The Israelis must have blown up the American convoy in the Gaza Strip” Recent report says Arafat and the PLO gave the go ahead, as if common sense didn’t tell you this. D) “It didn’t happen it all a clever Israeli lie” but sir we have the captain of the ship, a Palestinian who says so, and the weapons on videotape showing right now… “I am telling you the Israelis are deceiving you, you know they lie too. We need to convene a joint investigation with the UN to get to the bottom of this” Abdel Rahman on Oreilly after the Karine A 1) There were 20 dead and most teenagers and civilians…. 7 Dead at least 5 were gunmen. Reports the Palestinians took bodies from the Morgue to try and trick and inflate the numbers. 2) 2 Palestinian teenage siblings were killed by Israeli gunshots Palis say. Israelis say they are investigating and that a Palestinian planting a bomb there at the time. Pali doctor “says there are only gunshot wounds no mortar wounds” HOW MUCH YOU WANNA BET ON AN OFFER OF AN AUTOPSY? 3) Palestinians say as reported by Amy Kellog on Fox, that a 5 year old was shot and killed when she “went out to buy candy with her friends” (Right there you know its a lie.. “to buy candy”) Israelis say there was NO SHOOTING WHATSOEVER OR PRESENCE in that area at the time. 4) Palestinians say some 40 homes and structures have been destroyed Kellog of Fox News states “her sources” have told her it looks like an ‘earthquake’ hit the area…. Israelis state that 5 have been destroyed including the home of the Sonny Corleone assassins of 4 girls aged 2-12 and their mother and 8 month fetus which was shot in the stomach to make sure he died as well. Israelis say they are showing footage of structures that were destroyed 2 and 3 years ago. 5) A bomb exploded today in the West Bank and 2 Palestinians were killed. The Palestinians immediately said it was due to Israeli fire, assumably from the air? or a mysterious planted bomb? The Israelis and most agree that it was a Palestinian bombmaker that went off yet prematurely again. 6) Finally, the biggest lie that was the gasoline to the Intifadah… Mohammed al-dura. Now that’s not counting all the other lies like the Palis didn’t cheer on 9/11, except some ‘poor Palestinians’ that were paid and given sweets by deceptive ‘evil’ Israelis… This comical farce is pumped out even to this day by Pali spokeman. Outside of common sense of the poor liars they are (say as opposed to the slick Chinese and old Soviets, their trainers) I recently heard a Palestinian reporter speak who said forget some celebrating you could hear the celebrations from the Territories and Ramalla from miles away. So one asks with all these lies how can reporters continue to cite Pali “sources” with any credibility while instead subjecting the IDF reports with the intense skepticism. And how is it that when blatant lies are put forth, Karine A etc.. they are pooh poohed as just the poor Palis etc… yet the next lie if at all believable like Rafah deaths and home destructions exagerrations and falsifications… are either given equal weight as “differing accounts” or given all the weight as all recent reports about Rafah. So one asks some vexing questions? 1) How is it that a culture and people for the most part publically at least all go along pose, preen and lie for the cameras and Western assumably educated reporters continue to suck them down (get paid for them too) these continually proven lies while in Israel every word is questioned by the general population? What does that say about the PLO and the Palis? 2) Will this effect future credence given to Pali ‘sources’? Jenin didn’t seem to make a dent, as did neither the Karine A, Mohammed al-Dura, the murdering of the American Convoy etc… 3) Or will it just continue that an effective propaganda campaign as taught to them by the Viet Cong, will continue to work beautifully. As the gambler who always comes back for more, will Western sources continue to give credence to the possibility or likelihood that ‘this time’ the “Nazi” Israelis really did do it, ignore the ‘Big Lies’ of the past… This time I’m really gonna get rich at the Casino, this time the Palis must really be telling the truth…. everyone seems to be writing it…. the doctor wouldn’t lie about the wounds to the 5 year old killed, about Mohammed al-dura’s wounds, and they wouldn’t take dead animals and dig up bodies and dump them in Jenin or bring bodies from the Morgue to inflate the body count on Day 1 in Rafah to make world headlines???? WHY NOT? IT WORKS! And even if proven false it can simply be chalked up to “differing war accounts” and the image of the Nazi Israelis is made in the immediacy effect anyway. Its really easy to create a mess and takes a long time to clean it up… Mike

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 23 May 2004 23:13:32 +0000

Chris Bertram

Jonathan, I linked to you because your coverage is normally fair-minded and even-handed, though I often disagree with it.

The Haaretz account says “IDF tanks fired shells at a crowd of protesters” and the IDF denies this was so. You say on your blog that you are willing to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt. In your comment here you seem more accepting of their version that that. Obviously, neither you, nor I nor anyone not there can at this stage adjudicate between competing versions…..

KEY PART -

But, given that IDF statements immediately after such incidents in the past have turned out to be inaccurate and self-serving (and I mentioned Qana) I don’t see why anyone should follow you in benefit-of-doubt-giving.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 23 May 2004 23:13:10 +0000

Chris Bertram

Jonathan, I linked to you because your coverage is normally fair-minded and even-handed, though I often disagree with it.

The Haaretz account says “IDF tanks fired shells at a crowd of protesters” and the IDF denies this was so. You say on your blog that you are willing to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt. In your comment here you seem more accepting of their version that that. Obviously, neither you, nor I nor anyone not there can at this stage adjudicate between competing versions…..

KEY PART -

But, given that IDF statements immediately after such incidents in the past have turned out to be inaccurate and self-serving (and I mentioned Qana) I don’t see why anyone should follow you in benefit-of-doubt-giving.

By: Lance Boyle

Lance Boyle — Sat, 22 May 2004 01:13:02 +0000

Conrad Barva- “The complete unwillingness to believe one side or the other makes any real discussion or debate mostly futile.” I agree with you. And your analysis of the situation is reasoned and accurate. But isn’t there an advantage given to the “winner” in these kinds of situations if we don’t debate them? In the same way a teacher or parent, who can’t tell who did what to start the fight punishes both children, as the only fair way to settle things? Doesn’t that cede the outcome to the aggressor? Especially since we seem unable to stop the conflict itself. Aren’t you asking us to do nothing? But then the question is as always “How do we know what happened?” Is it possible to read between the lines? Even as vivid as the images from Abu Ghraib are I’m still not convinced it is what it seems. Then what? Now what? There’s an acceptance of things as they are in that recognition of futility. We can’t know so we’ll just look the other way. This has echoes in the past. An intellectual response is more defensible but possibly less accurate or, more importantly, less honest than an emotional one.

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Fri, 21 May 2004 14:45:20 +0000

Here’s another Israeli blog comment, and everything else by that author is also worth reading.

By: Frank Wallis

Frank Wallis — Fri, 21 May 2004 14:22:11 +0000

My little blog has a horrifying photo essay contrasting Bush laughing with AIPAC Tuesday night and a dead Palestinian boy in Rafah taking place at roughly the same time. http://www.powerskeptic.net/v-web/b2/

By: q

Fri, 21 May 2004 13:48:31 +0000

So we are debating the equivalent of how many angels you can fit on a pinhead (what is a “terrorist”), while real people have to put up with real problems. This is a good story, I was glancing over the photos thinking, oh yes another poor Arab family (so what is new), and then you realise, they are living in a football stadium!

By: Conrad barwa

Conrad barwa — Fri, 21 May 2004 09:56:45 +0000

I’ve read endless outrage in the blogosphere condemning the BBC or whoever for putting the work “terrorist” in inverted commas. Stupid comments by Jenny Tonge or whoever excusing suicide bombers generate thousands of words of commentary. (And lest there be any doubt, I have always and will always condemn actions such as suicide bombing which target civilians.) I’ve looked at a lot of blogs this morning — the usual suspects, the leftie warbloggers, the boy-wonder journalists, the distinguished lawyers, economists and political scientists, and so on. Of events in Rafa, not a mention. Chris, I don’t know about this; but then I don’t usually use the blogosphere as a benchmark on some issues, particularly ones that are as polarised as the ME. A lot of people say such idiotic things these days and I am unsure that there is the silence that you talk about but this could just mean that I read fewer and different blogs from you. In a sense much of this is tiring and repetitive; I mean, I think there is general agreement that targeting of civilians engaged in non-violent protest is just wrong and indefensible; this much is pretty well accepted across the different positions and few, if any are going to argue against this. So the debate will invariably move towards what actually happened, i.e. was there a mistake were the IDF actions misinterpreted or recasting the incident such as were there really just peaceful protestors or were there gun-toting and RPG wielding terrorists amongst them etc. etc. It becomes, all too predictable as to which interpretation will be preferred as, sadly too many seem to have made up their minds even before they come to consider issue. The complete unwillingness to believe one side or the other makes any real discussion or debate mostly futile.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Fri, 21 May 2004 09:29:32 +0000

your original point was about the silence concerning Rafa in the pro-war blogs, and my point was about the silence concerning the murder of Israeli children, and allied horrors, in the anti-war blogs broadly sympathetic to the Palestinians. No, my original point wasn’t as selective as you claim it was. I looked at Normblog, Harry’s Place, Brad De Long, Matt Yglesias (who has subsequently posted), Electrolite, Mark Kleiman, Volokh, Atrios, Jim Henley, and a whole swathe of others. Some of these are generally pro-war, but others are not.

By: pepi

pepi — Fri, 21 May 2004 09:20:14 +0000

Eve – Many non-fanatical people who wouldn’t praise terrorist action wouldn’t exactly condemn it either, citing excuses such as poverty, despair, and cycles of violence. Given that that attitude is quite widespread, silence about terrorist activities effectively loads the argument against those who have to face the terrorists. Well, I know that attitude exists, but I don’t really think it is as widespread as some would have it. I’ve never heard apologies for terrorism from anyone but those who explicitely do apologise for it, those for which anything coming from the Palestinians is completely excused. I wouldn’t say that’s the majority opinion. I may not exactly agree even with those who, without being on the extremes, do point at some factors like poverty and cycles of violence etc., but they’re not necessarily apologies or excuses for terrorism. Spotting political relations and causes is not always about excusing. The Palestinian people are kept in a state that is conducive to fanatical ideologies and violent reactions. That’s a fact. Where you place the primary responsibilities for that – on Israel, or on the Palestinian and Arab leaderships, or both – depends on your point of view, of course. But, without getting into the political debate, the very fact Israel is there, and responds, feeds that ideological fertile ground for terrorism. That’s why Israel wants to pull out. Being there attracts terrorists, that’s fact. Just like the fact the US coalition is in Iraq is attracting terrorists. I’m not apologising for terrorism if I say that. I’m not even necessarily saying that the US should not “be there” in the first place. Or that their being there is the primary and only cause for that terrorism to exist. You know? I wouldn’t reduce all views or even just superficial impressions to just the two opposite extreme ones of knee-jerk unconditional and acritical pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian support. To be honest, I think the most common view is that it’s all too screwed up by now, and that both sides have their responsibilities in the screwing up part. Simplistic, maybe, but that’s still not an apology for terrorism. Plus, you may have noticed silence in the weblogs you read, but I sure don’t notice any “silence” about terrorist attacks in the media at large… I don’t think that the silence about terrorist activities is indicative of shared condemnation, but rather of a very selective sensitivity to the presence of possible crimes against innocent civilians. Possible? with terrorist acts, there’s no possible. It’s self-evidently so. With military action, it’s not, that’s why it causes more political outrage and questioning. That’s the point. I’m trying to work out why it’s being suggested here at CT that it’s wrong to be silent about a case where we don’t know what the morally relevant intentions were, but that it’s ok to be silent in cases where we do know what those intentions were, since the killers have helpfully told us. That’s not what I was suggesting at all, as far as I’m concerned. Again, first of all I don’t see this overwhelming “silence” about terrorist attacks, and secondly, it’s not “ok” to be less “concerned” about that, it’s just different reactions because it’s different acts done by different entities. It’s not silence vs. selective attention, it’s reporting about a self-evident crime (terrorism) vs. reporting about what could be the consequences of a military policy that’s questionable (shooting into crowds). There’s just more questions to ask, about the latter event than the former. And more rules and accountability for a democratic state’s military than for terrorist organizations. I’m not saying there’s no bias at all in interpretations of events in Israel. Of course there is. Always, from any perspective. But I just don’t see why the obvious concept that military bodies are more accountable than terrorists should be ignored. Just like I don’t see why, in order to criticise one particular action or tactic by the IDF, one needs to point out obvious self-evident truths such as, terrorists are terrorists and do horrible things. Why do I need to relativise what the IDF has done by comparing it to what terrorists do, isn’t that exactly like what terrorist apologists explicitely do, only from the opposite extreme? I really find this whole “but-they’re-worse! save your outrage for them!” way of reasoning very tiresome. No matter where it comes from and with what intentions.

By: eve garrard

eve garrard — Fri, 21 May 2004 09:15:53 +0000

But Chris, your original point was about the silence concerning Rafa in the pro-war blogs, and my point was about the silence concerning the murder of Israeli children, and allied horrors, in the anti-war blogs broadly sympathetic to the Palestinians. And my question was not about whether the horrors are comparable, but about whether the former silence could be wrong if the latter wasn’t. How can that question be answered by noting that a couple of well-known warbloggers did cover the Israeli children’s murder?

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Fri, 21 May 2004 08:29:15 +0000

Eve, As I’ve already said, my main point was about the near comprehensive pattern of silence about the Palestinian deaths in Gaza. That point remains. As for the murderous incident you mention (and other incidents prior to the recent operation) it received coverage on the first two blogs I checked just now: Harry’s Place and Normblog. Norm doesn’t have comments, but, though the comments on Harry’s Place were marked by a spate of unseemly whataboutery (not dissimilar to the whataboutery you’ve engaged in here), no-one there complained about the selective attention being paid to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If someone had made the selective attention point in response to the post at Harry’s Place on the murder of that mother and her children, I’m sure we would both have been shocked.

By: pepi

pepi — Fri, 21 May 2004 08:23:21 +0000

Jonathan – Possibly because, if they continued to advance in the direction they were going, they would have ended up right in the middle of the IDF, thus drastically increasing the danger both to Israeli soldiers and themselves. Jonathan, I do believe that usually, for the military, it’s a case of crossing that bridge when you come to it. If you have a non-armed crowd of people marching non-violently in a non-violent way, you cannot shoot on them with live shells, period. There’s no preventive crowd-shooting rationale. And again, I have to wonder, what happens to the error theory when all these justifications are provided?

By: Dick Fitzgerald

Dick Fitzgerald — Fri, 21 May 2004 02:24:21 +0000

Lawrence of Cyberia has posted on Gaza the past several days, reminding us that Israel was conceived and born in terrorism.