Gilad Sharon #fundie

Gilad Sharon #fundie jpost.com

There is no justification for the State of Gaza being able to shoot at our towns with impunity. We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.

There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing. Then they’d really call for a ceasefire.

Were this to happen, the images from Gaza might be unpleasant – but victory would be swift, and the lives of our soldiers and civilians spared.

72 comments

old comment by

in WW2, the americans (and allies) were under the very real threat of losing the war in the pacific. if you dont know, losing the war in the pacific would have meant that the germans would have had unprecedented support in the war in europe. the dropping of the atomic bomb on nagasaki (in my opinion) is still totally a war crime, but my point is that it was necessary. what you have done is the polar opposite of necessary.

you Israelis walked in one day and just took over, and oppressed the people of gaza. you have no right to be there, and the british had no right to declare israel a legitimate state. you are not america in this situation, you are the germans. you are hitler. you are the oppressors. you are the tyrants. you are the destroyers of innocent lives. you are the ones with unlimited access to weapons, which you seem to have no qualms with using on a regular basis. you are the ones with advanced targeting software, and an intricate intelligence network, shelling residences and hospitals. and you make me sick.

its no surprise that the entire middle east hates you and wants to you annihilated. even i would enjoy that, and im a white canadian.

old comment by Vman

@#1473491

"in WW2, the americans (and allies) were under the very real threat of losing the war in the pacific. if you dont know, losing the war in the pacific would have meant that the germans would have had unprecedented support in the war in europe. the dropping of the atomic bomb on nagasaki (in my opinion) is still totally a war crime, but my point is that it was necessary. what you have done is the polar opposite of necessary.

its no surprise that the entire middle east hates you and wants to you annihilated. even i would enjoy that, and im a white canadian."

I find your views to be disgusting, 'sir'.

old comment by Gloria

@ Canuovea

"This is just wartime mentality, which is bad in its own right"

I think that about says it. People get vicious when they feel threatened. In my opinion, that's why civilised countries have to be serious about having and enforcing war crimes laws- because wartime atrocities are much harder to prevent than cause. It takes incredible discipline to do the minimum necessary and no more - hating and dehumanising your enemies is easier...and leads to very bad places.

@ Meeeh

Much though the two are often conflated, by Israel and its supporters as often as not, "Israel" and "the Jews" are two different things. This person is talking about Israel, and advocating that Israel disregard international law regarding war crimes (more than they already do.) They are not speaking on behalf of Judaism. The actions of Israel's government, or the opinions of certain of its more morally-bankrupt citizens, are not necessarily supported by Jewish people in general; there are plenty of Jews who advocate for human rights and civilised conduct in warfare.

@ #1473491

I am also a white Canadian, and I would like to say that you do NOT speak for me. You are just as bad as Gilad Sharon and anyone else who would have Israel wipe out Gaza. Slaughtering civilians, or advocating it, is never acceptable. Genocide, or advocating it, is never acceptable. To say you would "enjoy" the mass murder of innocents is disgusting and despicable.

On a less infuriating note, your understanding of WWII makes me weep for the Canadian education system. I know the Social Studies curriculum where I live has gone to pot, but I would rather hope you would still know which war ended first.

old comment by D Laurier

Ah this genocidal maniac.
Just like his father. A bloodthirsty goon with a blank cheque to kill with impunity.
The zionists DID (and do) flatten whole neighborhoods in Gaza.
The Germans flattened ALL of Stalingrad too. Guess how that turned out.

Just remember that while zionism is essentialy the jewish naziism, not all (or even most) jews are zionists.
Jews are waking up and realizing that the zionists are liars and murderers, and the jews are seeing the crimes that zionists commit while hiding behind judaism.
Zionism has led the jewish communitys of Europe and America around by the nose for over 60 years... but jews are getting tired of the scare tactics, and rejecting zionist depravity.

old comment by Vman

@ Fawful:
"They even bomb them with white phosphorous. Isn't it nice when you see them blatantly violating international treaties?"

Hmm, I've asked an Israeli whom I respect about this. The response was pretty long, so it might take a few separate posts here to copy it, and it's not an expert opinion, but I think it's worth it:
______________________________________

To: ******** 2012/11/24 - 22:58:09
Subject:
Btw. a question if I may.
I just came upon this (below). Know anything about it? To add, disprove, etc.? It's from the Gaza war of 2009.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes
http://www.hrw.org/node/81823

---------

From: ******** 2012/11/25 - 00:16:09
Subject: Re:

...

To answer your question. The following is from the session of the UN Human Rights Commission session in Geneva, discussing this matter. The testimony is of Professor Michael A. Newton, professor of law at the university of Nashville, who was called in to testify as to the legal standing of white phosphorus:

"Some people and I just want to be clear about this, some people would simply assume that white phosphorous because it has aspects of chemical compounds in it, ah, would per se constitute a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, not true. Because the, the effects of white phosphorous, all munitions in some way or another have a chemical process. White phosphorous is not intended to cause damage. Ah, it’s not dependent on the use of the chemicals in order to achieve its effect. It’s simply a collateral effect.
It’s not prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention."

{continued in following post}

old comment by Vman

{continued - so, this is still her reply to me}

The following testimony is that of Lt. Col. Raymond Lane, from Ireland, who was there to testify from a military point of view:

"White phosphorous produces smoke. And it’s true to say in Ireland we use different we use hexachloroethane and titanium tetrachloride. But I would have to say as somebody who used smoke many years ago, and I’m sure Col. Travers would agree with me, the quality of smoke produced by white phosphorous is superb. You will never match it. So, if you re-, if you want real smoke for real coverage, white phosphorous will give it to you. "

The Goldstone report, which was the result of these hearings stated that we used white phosphorus indiscriminately, and that we should be censored for it, and that its use should be outlawed outright.

The chairman of the committee, Richard Goldstone, eventually recanted his previous stance and stated that Israel did not fire indiscriminately.

In many ways, the result - the condemnation of the committee, and Goldstone's eventual change of stance, are both the fault of my stupid assed government. They refused to cooperate with the committee, declared it biased from the get go, and only provided Goldstone with our side of the story AFTER the report came out. Morons.

The following is from Goldstone's article in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html):

"Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

Haaretz later published an article stating that Goldstone wrote the above under duress. They said that the synagogue he goes to refused to let him participate in his grandson's bar-mitzvah because of his involvement with the UNHRC, an intitute which, I can tell you, is flat out evil.

I don't 100% support their actions, if this is true, but I guess I can understand it.

As to whether or not this was the only reason he wrote this article, I don't know. Some paragraphs, like the following, make me think he IS defending himself here:

"As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted."

{continued in following post}

old comment by Vman

{continued - so, this is still her reply to me}

However, I don't think that it negates all he says. Goldstone struck me, even at the time, as a balanced man. I really regretted my country's unwillingness to cooperate with his committee. I understood it, because, like I said, the UNHRC is evil beyond words and usually automatically condemns us. Cooperating with them would have given them added legitimacy, which they genuinely don't deserve.

Goldstone genuinely seems to mean the stuff he says about what his conclusions would have been had he known then what he knows now.

Then again, I WANT to believe it... so feel free not to take my view of it at face value.

---

Another source on the issue. The following is from this article http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2009/01/a-british-soldiers-view-of-operation-cast-lead/ , written under a pseudonym by a former British intelligence officer, evaluating operation Cast Lead:

"During the course of Israeli operations in Gaza the whole of the media seems to have become expert in the use of white phosphorous. Most commentators either do not know, or have refused to acknowledge, that the use of white phosphorous is not illegal. The Geneva conventions do restrict the use of white phosphorous in certain circumstances, but it is used almost daily by British forces in Afghanistan.

The IDF have stated that, during this operation, they fired a total of 200 shells containing phosphorous. 20 of these shells were fired in urban areas and the use of those 20 is being investigated in line with these restrictions.

{continued in following post}

old comment by Vman

{continued - so, this is still her reply to me}

White phosphorous is used because it provides an instant smokescreen, other munitions can provide a smokescreen but the effect is not instant. Faced with overwhelming enemy fire and wounded comrades, every commander would choose to screen his men instantly, to do otherwise would be negligent."

---

Thank you for asking. When it happened, there was extensive discussion of it, but quite frankly, next to the general (bogus) allegations of indiscriminate fire on civilians, the issue of white phosphorus specifically was rather minor. I never bothered to read up on it. I have now. :)

Also, because of your question, I stumbled across this paragraph, in Goldstone's recanting article, which I SO wish I had read before ******* posted that bit about how Hamas shooting civilians is ok because we all serve in the army when we're 18, and most of us do reservist duty afterwards:

"Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms. "

So, REALLY, many many thanks!

And please, feel free to ask. You're polite... that's a rare gem in these parts. It should be rewarded. :)

---------
{end of her message}

old comment by Vman

There's another thing I'd like to share. I apologize for the longness again, but it addresses something from the previous reply. First, my message:

---------

To: ******** 2012/11/25 - 13:53:13
Subject:

...

Btw. you said this: "... the UNHRC, an intitute which, I can tell you, is flat out evil." "... like I said, the UNHRC is evil beyond words and usually automatically condemns us." etc.
-> Can you please elaborate a bit more on this? And how come they're so biased, if indeed they are? :S

---------

And her reply:

---------

From: ******** 2012/11/25 - 15:17:32
Subject: Re:
The following is from an article in the washington post, published in 2007, one year after the UNHRC was created to replace the UNCHR:

"At a session in Geneva last week, the council -- established a year ago in an attempt to reform the U.N. Human Rights Commission -- listened to reports by special envoys appointed by its predecessor condemning the governments of Cuba and Belarus. It then abolished the jobs of both "rapporteurs" in a post-midnight maneuver orchestrated by its chairman, who announced a "consensus" in spite of loud objections by the ambassador from Canada that there was no such accord.

While ending the scrutiny of those dictatorships, the council chose to establish one permanent and special agenda item: the "human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories." In other words, Israel (or "Palestine," in the council's terminology), alone among the nations of the world, will be subjected to continual and open-ended examination. That's in keeping with the record of the council's first year: Eleven resolutions were directed at the Jewish state. None criticized any other government.

{continued in following post}

old comment by Vman

{continued - so, this is still her reply to me}

Genocide in Sudan, child slavery and religious persecution in China, mass repression in Zimbabwe and Burma, state-sponsored murder in Syria and Russia -- and, for that matter, suicide bombings by Arab terrorist movements -- will not receive systematic attention from the world body charged with monitoring human rights. That is reserved only for Israel, a democratic country that has been guilty of human rights violations but also has been under sustained assault from terrorists and governments openly committed to its extinction.

The old human rights commission, which was disparaged by former U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan for casting "a shadow on the United Nations system as a whole," frequently issued unbalanced condemnations of Israel but also typically adopted half a dozen resolutions a year aimed at the worst human rights abusers. For the new council, Israel is the only target. Eighteen of the 19 states dubbed "the worst of the worst" by the monitoring group Freedom House (Israel is not on the list) were ignored by the council in its first year. One mission was dispatched to examine the situation in Darfur. When it returned with a report criticizing the Sudanese government, the council refused to endorse it or accept its recommendations.

The regime of Gen. Omar al-Bashir, which is responsible for at least 200,000 deaths in Darfur, didn't just escape any censure. Sudan was a co-sponsor on behalf of the Arab League of the latest condemnations of Israel, adopted last week."

The rest of the article is found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401373.html

It read pretty much the same.

{continued in following post}

old comment by Vman

{continued - so, this is still her reply to me}

The UNHRC is evil because, while people on the forum can say that "we talk about Israel, and not the other (much worse - {her remark}) trouble spots of the world, because there are people who support it, and therefore a debate can happen, while no debate can occur on the other ones", the UNHRC doesn't have that privilege. The UNHRC should deal with it ALL. And yet, it mostly deals with us, not because we're so terrible, but because the UN is... how do I put it, stacked against us?

So, on the one hand, it mostly ignores horrible crimes against humanity, and on the other hand, it attacks us to the point of persecution. I would call that evil, and so would most Jews.

And to show that this has not much changed since 2007, the following is from Wikipedia:

"As of 2010, Israel had been condemned in 32 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006. The 32 resolutions comprised 48.1% of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council.[60] By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned. Toward Sudan, a country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed "deep concern.".

{continued in following post}

old comment by Vman

{continued - so, this is still her reply to me}

The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. The Council's special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry. The resolution, which was sponsored by Organisation of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well. Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as that in Darfur."

You might note that HRW, is the human rights organization that was screaming bloody murder about the white phsophorus, in the link you sent me. Even THEY can see that this is twisted.

And finally, for a fairly good, and rather funny explanation of the UN situation in general, as well as the UNHRC and UNCHR situation, I highly recommend the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW4FTAcwL0k

---------
{end of her message}

old comment by Felix Wilde

@Vman: That was fascinating, but please, use the edit function! That took half the thread! I think the author had their own biases at work (interesting definition of "evil") but it was very informative and revealing.

@Anon-e-moose: Life of Brian ftw! I tend to forget these days if the Starstika of David the Judean Peoples' Front wear is visible in the normal cut, but I think not; removed to avoid controversy was the decision I think. You definitely get a better look in the deleted scene they appear in though.

@WatermelonRat: Excuse me? Did you just say Zionism is "just" Jewish nationalism, as if nationalism is not one of the most destructive and loathsome philosophies of human history?

Nationalism is disgusting in any form. It's the belief that "our way" is more important than anything else, including any individual's human rights. It's even the source of a lot of atrocities committed by Communist governments (who are supposedly internationalist) once Mao and Stalin started espousing nationalist rhetoric; never mind fascism and Nazism!

Anyone who advocates military expansion as a key purpose of the state, expects mandatory military service, places the collective of the nation above the individuals within it, advocates genocide or ethnic cleansing to deal with scapegoat "enemies" and attempts to consolidate all available power into the hands of the state is a fucking Nazi. If it heils like a Nazi and marches like a Nazi, it's a Nazi. The only differences are place, time, and that Zionists should know better.

Not all Zionists are this bad; in fact, only a minority are. Chomsky (outspoken anti-Zionist jew) once said that during his childhood the belief that Israel should be allowed to exist was Zionism. Now, without him changing his ideas, Zionism has come to refer to a group of ideas he finds reprehensible.

Personally, I find people's side-taking on this issue very interesting. Israel is about as near to literally fascist as any country around today. It's surrounded by theocratic Muslim dictatorships which are no better. Both sides keep committing crimes against humanity. Innocent people are dying by the hundreds while the governments and radical lunatic groups scream and point fingers. Yet there's this constant defence, as if one side somehow has the moral high ground. Both sides, just accept some of the fucking blame and it'll go a long way toward your cause. Don't excuse yourself for murdering civilians - that's a really good tip in international PR.

Solidarity AAW!

old comment by Gloria

@ Vman
My thanks to you, for sharing that, and to your friend as well.

@ Felix Wilde

"1. national spirit or aspirations.
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4. the desire for national advancement or independence.
5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations."
-Dictionary.com

Of those, only 3 imply that the interests of one's own nation are a priority even over the interests of other nations. None require that the interests of the nation be prioritised over human rights.

old comment by Felix Wilde

@Vman: Yeah, that's how it works. anon-e-moose uses that technique for long retorts sometimes. You just have to do it before your IP changes.

@Gloria: This only reinforces my dislike of dictionary.com. I think the maiin problem is that I am talking about nationalism as a political philosophy, not merely a sentiment. The first four of those are not nationalism to me; they may be patriotism, chauvinism or republicanism, but not nationalism.

The final definition is the only one I think is really relevant, and it is in the distinction of "our national interests" from any others that the problem occurs. Emphasis on one's own interests at the expense of others rarely remains contained to one issue, and the othering of outsiders almost invariably leads to dehumanisation. While dismissal of the importance of individual rights is not a tenet of nationalism, I consider it to be a corollary effect, in the same way that science education strips religion of its signifigance without directly condemning it, or obsession with aesthetic quality erodes consideration of actual integrity. I see nationalism and statist communism as sharing this quality: placing excessive focus on one collectivist value at the expense of other values.

@WatermelonRat: Apologies. Well, I would say jingoism is mostly a wartime phenomenon akin to nationalism, while nationalism is that sentiment distilled into a political philosophy. But it's the zaxelbrax problem again: I don't consider simply demanding the right to exist "nationalism" by any stretch. By that definition, several Muslims I know, and a few self-described anti-Zionists, would be Zionists. I know nationalism has been used to describe similar scenarios before, but I always consider it reporting bias; I had the same issue with most Irish "nationalists" being described that way throughout the 90s. Republican != Nationalist, and that's even true in the US.

I place a lot of importance on the distinction between patriotism and nationalism partially because of my grandfather. Despite being very a diehard Liberal Party acolyte, he's very principled. A military man but anti-war (he survived Viet Nam and suffered PTSD and AOS as a result, can you blame him?), a fierce patriot but derisive of nationalism, a traditionalist but sceptical of authority, a Catholic but with no time for religious bigotry or denialism. I have so much respect for him, to equate patriotism and nationalism would seem wrong to me.

That said, I have no real repsect for patriotism itself either. It's another empty "virtue" humanity would be better off without. The "old lie" (dulce et decorum est pro patria mori) was a lie indeed. As Bill Hicks said, "It's a round world last time I checked."

old comment by smartz

@Vman:

I would personally like to give those other nasty regimes a what for, but it seems Israel keeps refreshing the age-old grudges, so to speak. They have blockaded an entire culture from any aid. And speaking of disproportion, the amount of force they mete out against these people who basically want to be free of this blockade is several magnitudes greater, as I said before, answering rocket launchers that do not hit often with bomber planes that hit almost all the time. And killing civilians at that.

If I was the UNHRC, I would try to stop the repeat offenders before I could tackle any other issue and it seems Israel is number one on their agenda, which is unfortunate for your penpal. I found it boggling for her to call an organization EVIL when their very purpose is to ensure human rights for EVERYONE, especially the oppressed Gazans. Israel is not immune to being called out on denying human rights, nor should it ever think it will be. Can we even consider Israel an ally when they keep on treating these people with such disdain?

old comment by Felix Wilde

Thanks, Gloria, but you don't have to intercede. Given the context, I gathered we were talking about the political philosophy. Israel doesn't actually have to worry about its independence much and is an occupier rather than being occupied. Given these circumstances and Chomsky's opinion of the current meaning of Zionism, which was the point at hand, I wrongly inferred the meaning of WatermelonRat's post.

I suppose I ultimately disagree though, if we are to use the broader sense, that Zionism is jewish nationalism. I don't think a jewish Israeli who is proud of his heritage and loves his country and but opposes its government's policies is a Zionist, and as I've already said, I personally would rather call him a patriot than a nationalist.

I'm not trying to shift any of the responsibility from myself, just trying to explain why I erred. Apologies again to you both.

Gilad Sharon #fundie jpost.com

72 comments

Confused?