Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Lee Kaplan, Dafka Exposed
Santa Cruz Community Television is offering up more than the usual community dish. Recently, Club Cruz, a locally produced television show, has been used as a platform for virtual infomercials for an extremist group with a record of harassing peace advocates.
The show, produced by Santa Cruz resident Becky Johnson, has featured on several occasions a man named Lee Kaplan, self-proclaimed founder and director of the extreme Zionist group, Dafka.
The show, produced by Santa Cruz resident Becky Johnson, has featured on several occasions a man named Lee Kaplan, self-proclaimed founder and director of the extreme Zionist group, Dafka.
Lee Kaplan, Dafka Exposed
By Will Wallace
Santa Cruz Community Television is offering up more than the usual community dish. Recently, Club Cruz, a locally produced television show, has been used as a platform for virtual infomercials for an extremist group with a record of harassing peace advocates.
The show, produced by Santa Cruz resident Becky Johnson, has featured on several occasions a man named Lee Kaplan, self-proclaimed founder and director of the extreme Zionist group, Dafka. During the episodes, Kaplan dominated the half-hour shows with inaccuracies about the Palestinian peace movement, negative stereotypes about Arabs and Islam, and potentially slanderous statements about widely respected groups such as Santa Cruz’s Resource Center for Nonviolence and Berkely’s MidEast Children’s Alliance and individuals involved with them. Intermittently throughout the show, addresses of Kaplan’s websites appeared across the screen and Kaplan invited viewers to visit the websites; he also promoted a book that was for sale on one of the websites. Each episode also featured a disgruntled Arab guest who shared negative opinions about Palestinians and Arabs from a presumed “insider’s” perspective. (One questions the authenticity of such guests, however, since Kaplan brags on his website about disguising himself and passing himself off as an Arab at various peaceful gatherings.)
Ron Holman, Programming Director at Community Television, said that even though some people may disagree with statements Kaplan makes, he is able to appear on their channels via their rules which set up the community stations as resource centers for the public as opposed to a television network model. Holman noted that an individual’s speech could be limited if he was inciting violence.
Though Kaplan didn’t directly call for violence in the episodes, a little fact checking showed that groups he is associated with have been busy hijacking and illegally intruding on peaceful meetings, harassing peace activists and making at least one death threat.
- October 5, 2003. After participating in a debate at UC Berkeley on Middle East relations,activist Allison Weir received a death threat from an individual identifying himself with Dafka.
-December 3, 2003. DAFKA follows and harasses traveling peace exhibition, Wheels of Justice; coordinates harassment campaign via internet site.
-June 5, 2004. Progressive Jewish Bay Area Peace Demonstration Harassed by Anti-Palestinian Groups.
-November 19, 2004. Code Pink Hayward meeting at local church hijacked by hate groups Dafka and Protest Warrior; verbal abuse and physical intimidation used against female peace activists.
In his website, www.dafka.org, Kaplan describes himself as chief editor, “investigative journalist, news bureau head, businessman and political activist.” In other media, however, he is listed with other titles, including “Contributing Editor” for David Horowitz’s www.frontpagemag.com website and West Coast Coordinator” of Students for Academic Freedom. A post by someone identifying himself as Lee Kaplan on santacruzindymedia.org stated “I do make a living doing research about the Middle East and am a professional journalist. People do drop a dime to read me....I have appeared internationally on radio as a commentator.” However, an extensive and exhaustive search yielded no information that could confirm Kaplan’s location, background, education, research and type of business. In addition, there no evidence was found that he had been published in print, as he insinuated.
Kaplan appears to be involved in a network of pro-militancy, pro-Israeli international public relations agents who advocate, among other things, for Israel to seize all lands held 2000 years ago and mandatory military or civil service for all residents of Israel . He’s also busy generating propaganda for a consortium of conservative websites with the aim of discrediting peace groups, activists, librarians and academics; recruiting college students in the Bay Area and Santa Cruz for his anti-Palestinian Peace Movement and academic censorship groups; and shaping U.S. policy on education through SAF and its associated groups.
What Does All of This Mean?
On a website found in Dafka’s Links section, Bernard Shapiro, head of the “Freeman Center for Strategic Studies,” describes a scheme for a worldwide public relations campaign with the ultimate aim of protecting the over six billion dollars Israel annually receives from the United States.
“I think it is time to take a second look at my concept but expand it to include radio, magazines, cable television (cable will accept this type of commercial) and newspapers. The ads should range from the very soft evocative travel type to some hard hitting but subtle political messages. Pretend that Israel is a corporation with a vast market in the United States. Receipts from that market top $6 Billion Dollars ( including US economic and military aid, UJA, Israel Bonds, JNF, plus all the other campaigns from Yeshivas to the Technion). What would you spend to protect a market of that magnitude? One half of one percent would equal $30 million. You can run for president with thirty million dollars. In a wild fantasy, lets say we have that much money. And let's say we hire a talented creative ad man to develop a multi-faceted, multi-media, and multi-year campaign to win the hearts and minds of the American people.”Kaplan is a regular contributor to the Freeman website.
Like the “frontpagemag” operation, Students for Academic Freedom is one of several organizations under the leadership umbrella of David Horowitz . SAF doesn’t actually promote “freedom” as much as encouraging students to turn in their teachers for saying things they don’t like or giving them grades they don’t want. If this seems eerily similar to approaches used by fascist campaigns throughout the world, that’s because it is. This website includes organizing tools, blank complaint forms for students to pass out and an “Academic Bill of Rights,” which amounts to a plan for academic censorship. It also has a “National and State Legislation” section (on the left scroll-down menu) and files on teachers nationwide they deem to be “too liberal.” The homepage even includes an insult aimed the target audience --- a graphic of the “hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil” monkeys, traditionally a representation of people who want to ignore reality.
Kaplan has not been content to simply recruit for members in our community; he has also used his platform to attack local politicians and activists who advocate for peace. Scott Kennedy, outgoing Santa Cruz mayor who signed the trailblazing City of Santa Cruz’s proclamation against the Iraq War, is one person Kaplan targeted for attacks on his website. Referring to the Resource Center for Nonviolence and Kennedy, Kaplan writes,
“..the ultimate in gall is that Scott likes to invoke the teachings of non-violence and tolerance of Martin Luther King. Would that Dr. King was still alive, he'd probably abandon non-violence for a moment and chuck ol' Scott upside the head. ....It is high time the Santa Cruz community recognize the hypocrisy of a center that is really a mouthpiece for Arab anti-Semitism and violence against Jews in the Middle East. Scott is an elected City Councilman there. When his term is up, I'm sure the majority of people who reside in Santa Cruz will turn him out. Perhaps this commentary can inform enough of them to do so.”With this veiled threat by Kaplan, one is left to wonder whether or not his remarks about Kennedy had any influence on his recent defeat in the City Council race.
The Dafka website, which roughly translated means, “In your face!” in Hebrew, has an editorial voice much like Kaplan’s and Horowitz’s other projects. They vociferously attack any organization or individual that dares question the United States’ and Israel’s policies. Kaplan and Horowitz prefer to use semantic attacks against those they seek to silence with meaningless phrases meant to squelch all forms of discussion. An example of such a phrase is “stand with Israel.” Although the phrase conjures up a strong images of loyalty, what does it really mean? It insinuates, much like the phrase “support our troops,” that if someone doesn’t go along with what the author is advocating, then he somehow does not “stand with Israel,” or does not “support our troops.” Whenever someone challenges something Kaplan or Horowitz says, their stock reply is “Anti-Semitism!” This couldn’t be more ridiculous since they save their most vicious attacks for other Jews involved in the peace process and for Arabs, who are also by definition a Semitic people.
Lee Kaplan, like anyone else, has his right to free speech. What seems to be less clear, especially in the way Community Television is run, is how people are accountable for what they broadcast. As it stands now, only a producer can allow people access to past episodes of Club Cruz. One has to question if that makes an entity responsible for the content of their broadcasts, especially when, in the case of former mayor Scott Kennedy, Club Cruz broadcasts occur during City Council meetings.
Clearly, Lee Kaplan and his associates have an agenda: attack and discredit any entity that might lead to a slowing of money flowing into Israel. Judging by their slick websites and the many public relations experts employed, it is also a well-funded one. When community budgets are being slashed and local resources are drying up, how fair is it to allow a non-Santa Cruz County resident to broadcast his infomercials for free at the community’s expense? Under the current structure of Community T.V., Becky Johnson, producer of Club Cruz, is the only person accountable to the public for the content of the show. She is listed under Dafka’s website as a member and UCSC coordinator for Dafka; her email is listed as becky_johnson@sbcglobal.net. An alternative email address she listed on the Santa Cruz Indymedia site is becky_johnson222@hotmail.com.
In many of the websites associated with Kaplan, supporters are urged to inundate public officials, regulatory agencies and the media with their messages. Perhaps all those people Kaplan has been attacking really do have something to learn from him.
For Further Reading:
Background Information:
Distorting U.S. Foreign Policy: The Israel Lobby and American Power
The Men From JINSA and CSP
The Pro-Israel Lobby
The Israel Lobby and The Left: Uneasy Questions
A Selection of Chomsky Posts
Pro-Israel Lobby Has Strong Voice
Subpeonas issued for officials of pro-Israeli lobby group
Mainline Protestants Challenge Israel Lobby
A Strange Freedom: Jewish and Christian Fundamentalism
For more information:
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/feature/dis...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
As usual the radical wannabes from the ISM who brabd themselves "peace advocates" but really wae war against Jews in the Middle East and America at home have generated lies.
Ask Alison Weir herslef if DAFKA made threats to her. The recording she phoned the police about did not mention DAFKA. But then again, for the creeps here to tell a lie is nothing new. They have no other weapons.
Club Cruz can take credit for ridding Santa Cruz of Scott Kennedy. But it's jsut the beginning. Thanks for the publicity as we expose more of the lunatic fringe in Santa Cruz...
Ask Alison Weir herslef if DAFKA made threats to her. The recording she phoned the police about did not mention DAFKA. But then again, for the creeps here to tell a lie is nothing new. They have no other weapons.
Club Cruz can take credit for ridding Santa Cruz of Scott Kennedy. But it's jsut the beginning. Thanks for the publicity as we expose more of the lunatic fringe in Santa Cruz...
It's amusing seeing "Will Wallace" (_Braveheart_, anyone?) cite Wikipedia's entry for "Semitic" in an attempt to distort the accepted meaning of "antisemitic" to also include "anti-Arab." The very same source makes it plain:
--- begin quote
Misnomer
The term has always referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and not to other people who speak semitic languages (e.g., Arabs) and this has been the only use of this word for more than a century. In recent decades some people have argued that the term anti-Semitism should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, since Arabic is a semitic language. However, this usage has not been widely adopted. In that there are few instances of prejudice against both Arabs and Jews to the exclusion of other races or nationalities, and in fact many more instances of antagonism between Jews and Arabs than of a specific bias against both groups together, there would seem to be little need for a word to describe such a prejudice, and to redefine 'antisemitism' would result in robbing the word of any usefulness.
Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are not antonyms. To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many writers on the subject (such as Emil Fackenheim of the Hebrew University) now favor the unhyphenated term antisemitism.
--- end quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
So much for journalistic integrity.
@%<
--- begin quote
Misnomer
The term has always referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and not to other people who speak semitic languages (e.g., Arabs) and this has been the only use of this word for more than a century. In recent decades some people have argued that the term anti-Semitism should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, since Arabic is a semitic language. However, this usage has not been widely adopted. In that there are few instances of prejudice against both Arabs and Jews to the exclusion of other races or nationalities, and in fact many more instances of antagonism between Jews and Arabs than of a specific bias against both groups together, there would seem to be little need for a word to describe such a prejudice, and to redefine 'antisemitism' would result in robbing the word of any usefulness.
Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are not antonyms. To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many writers on the subject (such as Emil Fackenheim of the Hebrew University) now favor the unhyphenated term antisemitism.
--- end quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
So much for journalistic integrity.
@%<
you can complain about Will Wallace all you want and try to pick apart the article, but the fact remains that Will Wallace, Indymedia, and many other folks in the bay area are getting the true word out about Lee Kaplan, Becky Johnson, Club Cruz, and Dafka.
To Lee: If you consider this article good publicity, then you clearly show how sick your well-funded Zionist agenda is. But if you really do like this article, then good, becuase it will follow you everywhere you go, everytime your name is placed in a search engine, this article will come up.
Or, Lee Kaplan, Dafka Exposed.
Thank you Will Wallace.
Please keep up the good work.
shalom.
To Lee: If you consider this article good publicity, then you clearly show how sick your well-funded Zionist agenda is. But if you really do like this article, then good, becuase it will follow you everywhere you go, everytime your name is placed in a search engine, this article will come up.
Or, Lee Kaplan, Dafka Exposed.
Thank you Will Wallace.
Please keep up the good work.
shalom.
For more information:
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/feature/dis...
The link you provided has given me a chance to set a few things straight about claims made by your friend, Steven Argue.
FWIW, I'm very encouraged to see a leftist like Becky Johnson consistently come to Israel's defense. Would that many more leftists be endowed with her kind of courage and fortitude.
FWIW, I'm very encouraged to see a leftist like Becky Johnson consistently come to Israel's defense. Would that many more leftists be endowed with her kind of courage and fortitude.
I did not say that Steven Argue was a friend of mine. Though, I'm glad he takes the time to refute Zionist lies and hatred.
It seems the article on Santa Cruz Indymedia exposing Lee Kaplan has upset some of his followers. Oh, too bad. The turth hurts.
It seems the article on Santa Cruz Indymedia exposing Lee Kaplan has upset some of his followers. Oh, too bad. The turth hurts.
But as a person who was trumpeting lies, half truths, distortions, exaggerations and inaccuracies that he had read in all sorts of unreliable sources, he sure didn't refute any lies.
For my part, using logic and solid evidence I refuted five of his ludicrous claims, and yet he still stood by those arguments, let alone his other various baseless contentions. That sort of behavior places him under extremely ridiculous light and teaches a lot about him.
I don't really know about Kaplan's fortunes, but if his statement that he's about to discredit Mr. Argue on TV by refuting all the groundless claims he makes in the diatribes he posted to SC-IMC is anything to go by, I think Steven Argue and his fans have much to fear regarding what the impact of the truth about his anti-Zionist zeal will have on his credibility whenever he brings up some point pertinent to Israel, Zionism or Judaism.
For my part, using logic and solid evidence I refuted five of his ludicrous claims, and yet he still stood by those arguments, let alone his other various baseless contentions. That sort of behavior places him under extremely ridiculous light and teaches a lot about him.
I don't really know about Kaplan's fortunes, but if his statement that he's about to discredit Mr. Argue on TV by refuting all the groundless claims he makes in the diatribes he posted to SC-IMC is anything to go by, I think Steven Argue and his fans have much to fear regarding what the impact of the truth about his anti-Zionist zeal will have on his credibility whenever he brings up some point pertinent to Israel, Zionism or Judaism.
Critical Thinker, why are resorting to personal attacks against Steven Argue? I'm glad he often takes the time to respond to the Zionist network when they post on Santa Cruz Indymedia. Will Wallace has done a great job exposing the truth about Lee Kaplan. Thank you and Shalom.
S.C. local, I understand you may be very misinformed about history of the Land of Israel, Jews, the Mideast and Zionism, or even willing to tolerate lies being constantly repeated about these topics, which might explain your wonderment at my personal attacks on Mr. Argue on the SC-IMC thread in question. You're entitled both to your views on these subjects and your high opinion of him, but you really shouldn't be all that surprised when people who resent his irratrional behavior vis-a-vis these topics assault him personally.
Whatever the merits against Lee Kaplan's personal behavior are, the fact remains that he uses the highest journalistic standards when he reveals the truth about how people like Steven Argue and anti-Zionists in general lie and which lies they're telling.
Lighten up and take it easy. Salud.
Whatever the merits against Lee Kaplan's personal behavior are, the fact remains that he uses the highest journalistic standards when he reveals the truth about how people like Steven Argue and anti-Zionists in general lie and which lies they're telling.
Lighten up and take it easy. Salud.
and quite outraged that the overwhelming majority of his claims have been refuted, so he's shooting at more directions than one, repeating his recucled and discredited arguments here as well, presumably in the hope they'll come true or convince a wider audience. For the rebuttals by Kaplan and myself, see
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/13401/index.php#13550 .
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/13401/index.php#13550 .
Becky Johnson wrote:
Steve, so you have to go all the way back to 1982 to find a massacre to pin on the Israelis. And you have to fudge the facts to make even THAT work. They were not "innocent Palestinians" since a day or two before a group of them went into a Lebanese camp and murdered 65 men, women, and children. When the Lebanese Phalanx came up the road to the camp where the murderers were hiding, Ariel Sharon let them through. It was the Lebanese army that killed the Palestinians. Not a single IDF soldier killed anyone. Sharon was later disciplined by his own govt. who ruled that he should have known what the Lebanese were about to do and he should have tried to stop them.
Fast forward to Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. In 1994, right after signing the Oslo Accords with Israel, Arafat rounded up any Palestinians who had been part of the Israeli govt. occupation between 1967 and 1993 and had them shot in the public sports stadium in a public execution. And that was only the beginning. Arafat's minions sent over 100 suicide bombers into Israel proper to kill innocent civilians. And Steve Argue calls the Israelis violent?
When Israel performs a targeted execution of a known terrorist, it is only after it is deemed impossible to capture and put the perpetrator on trial that Israel is forced to go the next step and kill them outright.
These are people who have already killed and are planning new attacks, so these executions are all about saving lives.
When Israel can arrest the suspected terrorist, then they are put on trial like a civilized country with no death penalty.
Steven Argue responds:
Becky Johnson seems to think that the Sabra and Shatila massacre is not worth discussing because 1982 is supposedly ancient history. 1982 is hardly beyond the statute of limitations for crimes against humanity. I’m sure you don’t have the same attitude towards Nazi butchers of the Third Reich. While I could, and have, written about the most recent crimes of the Israeli government in Jenin and elsewhere, the Sabra and Shatila massacre is still worth talking about since the current crimes are only a continuation of the past. Likewise, Sharon’s guilt in the Sabra Shatila massacre is worth mentioning.
Becky Johnson shows here extreme ignorance by claiming that this massacre was carried out by the Lebanese government. The Lebanese government had nothing to do with it. The massacre was carried out both by the Israeli military under the command of Sharon and by Israel's allies in Lebanon, the Christian Phalangists.
With the testimony Mrs. Sersawi in the Belgium appeals court on the Israeli government’s war crimes, which I’ve posted twice, I've provided Becky Johnson with clear evidence of the involvement of both the Israeli government and Lebanese Christian Phalangists in this mass murder of unarmed civilians, many that had been slaughtered after being taken prisoner by Israel. Among the dead was Mrs. Sersawi’s husband. Yet you Becky have chosen to ignore this evidence I have provided you to absurdly claim that this mass murder was only the killing of 35 combatants and that it was the work of the Lebanese government.
I will post Mrs. Sersawi’s testimony here once again at the end of this writing.
Prior to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon both Ariel Sharon and Bashir Gemayel had declared that they would create a panic amongst Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon that would reduce the numbers living there from 500,000 to 50,000. The Sabra and Shatila massacre was part of this stated goal of ethnic cleansing.
Ha’aretz reported on September 26, 1982: “A long-term objective aimed at the expulsion of the whole Palestinian population of Lebanon beginning with Beirut. The purpose was to create a panic to convince [sic] all the Palestinians of Lebanon that they were no longer safe in that country.”
As such the people of Sabra and Shatila facing the Zionist slaughter of innocents, were to meet the same fate as the Palestinian towns of Dueima, Kibya, Kfar Qasim, and Deir Yassin from 1947 to 1950.
As Time Magazine admitted on October 4th, 1982, “On several occasions Gemayel told Israeli officials he would raze the camps and flatten them into tennis courts. This fits in with Israeli thinking. The Christian militia forces that were known to have gone into the camps were trained by the Israelis.”
Major Saqr of the Phalangist Militia bragged after the massacre, “The only way you will find out how many Palestinians we killed is if they ever build a subway under Beirut ... A good massacre or two will drive the Palestinians out of Beirut and Lebanon once and for all.” (Jonathan Randal of the Washington Post).
Yet the massacre was not just carried out by these murderous Phalangist militia trained and allied with Israel, Israeli forces were also directly involved.
On February 14, 1983 Der Spiegel carried an interview with one of the killers at Sabra and Shatila, who described direct Israeli participation along side his own. The article, entitled “Each of You Is An Avenger”, is a first person account of crimes against humanity:
“We met in the Schahrur wadi, in the valley of the nightingales Southeast of Beirut. It was Wednesday, the fifteenth of September ... We were approximately three hundred men from East Beirut, South Lebanon and the Akkar Mountains in the north ... I belonged to the Tiger Militia of ex-President Camile Chamoun.
“Phalange officers summoned us and brought us to the meeting place. They told us that they needed us for a “special action” ... “You are the agents of good,” the officers told us repeatedly. “Each of you is an avenger.” ...
“Then a good dozen Israelis in green uniforms without indication of rank came along. They had playing cards with them and spoke Arabic well, except that like all Jews they pronounced the hard “h” as “ch.” They were talking about the Palestinian camps Sabra and Shatila ... it was clear to us what we were to do, and we were looking forward to it.
“We had to swear an oath never to divulge anything about our action. At about 10 p.m. we climbed into an American army truck that the Israelis had given over to us. We parked the vehicle near the airport tower. There, immediately next to the Israeli positions, several such trucks were already parked.
“Some Israelis in Phalange uniforms were with the Party. “The Israeli friends who accompany you,” our officers told us “... will make your work easier.” They directed us not to make use of our firearms, if at all possible. “Everything must proceed noiselessly.” ... We saw other comrades. They had to do their work with bayonets and knives. Bloody corpses were lying in the alleys. The half-asleep women and children who cried out for help put our whole plan in danger, alarming the entire camp.
“Now I saw once again the Israelis who had been at our secret meeting. One signaled us to move back to areas of the camp entrance. The Israelis opened up with all their guns. The Israelis helped us with floodlights.
“There were shocking scenes that showed what the Palestinians were good for. A few, including women, had taken shelter in a small alley, behind some donkeys. Unfortunately we had to shoot down these poor animals to finish off the Palestinians behind them. It got to me when the animals cried out in pain. It was gruesome.
“A comrade entered a house full of women and children. The Palestinians screamed and threw their gas stoves on the ground. We sent the hard-hearted rabble to hell.
“At about four in the morning my squad went back to the truck. When there was morning light we went back into the camp. We went past bodies, stumbled over bodies, shot and stabbed all eyewitnesses. Killing others was easy once you have done it a few times.
“Now came the Israeli Army bulldozers. “Plow everything under the ground. Don’t let any witnesses stay alive.” But despite our efforts, the area was still teeming with people. They ran about and caused awful confusion. The order to “plow them under” demanded too much.
“It became clear that the pretty plan had failed. Thousands had escaped us. Far too many Palestinians are still alive. Everywhere now people are talking about a massacre and feeling sorry for the Palestinians. Who appreciates the hardships that we took upon ourselves ... Just think. I fought for twenty-four hours in Shatila without food or drink.”
Many of the mass graves were never opened, but over 3,000 people were murdered at Sabra and Shatila.
In addition to the scenes described above, Palestinians were also rounded up and systematically slaughtered in the thousands by Israeli troops in a Lebanese stadium.
As survivor Mrs. Sersawi testified in a Belgium appeals court on the Israeli governments war crimes, "The Lebanese forces militia [Phalangists] had taken us from our homes and marched us up to the entrance of the camp where a large hole had been dug in the earth. The men were told to get into it. Then the militiamen shot a Palestinian. The women and children climbed over bodies to get to this spot, but we were truly shocked by seeing this man killed in front of us and there was a roar of shouting and screams from the women. That's when we heard the Israelis on a loudspeaker shouting, 'give us your men.' We thought, 'thank God, they will save us.'
"We were told to walk up the road to the Kuwaiti Embassy, the women and children in front, the men behind. We had been separated. There were Phalangist Militiamen and Israeli soldiers walking alongside us. I could still see Hassan (her husband with whom she was 3 months pregnant) and Faraj (her brother-in-law). It was like a parade. There were several hundred of us. When we got to Cite Sportif, the Israelis put us women in a big concrete room and the men were taken to another side of the stadium. There were a lot of men from the camp and I could no longer see my husband. The Israelis went around saying 'Sit, sit.' It was 11 AM. An hour later we were told to leave. But we stood outside amid the Israeli soldiers, waiting for our men.
"Some men came out, none of them younger than 40, and they told us to be patient, that hundreds of men were still inside. Then about 4 PM an Israeli officer came out. He was wearing dark glasses and said in Arabic: 'What are you waiting for?' He said there was nobody left, that everyone had gone. There were Israeli trucks moving out with tarpaulin over them. We couldn't see inside. And there were jeeps and tanks and a bulldozer making a lot of noise. We stayed there as it got dark and the Israelis appeared to be leaving and we were very nervous. But when the Israelis had moved away, we went inside. And there was no one there. Nobody. I had been only three years married. I never saw my husband again."
Steve, so you have to go all the way back to 1982 to find a massacre to pin on the Israelis. And you have to fudge the facts to make even THAT work. They were not "innocent Palestinians" since a day or two before a group of them went into a Lebanese camp and murdered 65 men, women, and children. When the Lebanese Phalanx came up the road to the camp where the murderers were hiding, Ariel Sharon let them through. It was the Lebanese army that killed the Palestinians. Not a single IDF soldier killed anyone. Sharon was later disciplined by his own govt. who ruled that he should have known what the Lebanese were about to do and he should have tried to stop them.
Fast forward to Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. In 1994, right after signing the Oslo Accords with Israel, Arafat rounded up any Palestinians who had been part of the Israeli govt. occupation between 1967 and 1993 and had them shot in the public sports stadium in a public execution. And that was only the beginning. Arafat's minions sent over 100 suicide bombers into Israel proper to kill innocent civilians. And Steve Argue calls the Israelis violent?
When Israel performs a targeted execution of a known terrorist, it is only after it is deemed impossible to capture and put the perpetrator on trial that Israel is forced to go the next step and kill them outright.
These are people who have already killed and are planning new attacks, so these executions are all about saving lives.
When Israel can arrest the suspected terrorist, then they are put on trial like a civilized country with no death penalty.
Steven Argue responds:
Becky Johnson seems to think that the Sabra and Shatila massacre is not worth discussing because 1982 is supposedly ancient history. 1982 is hardly beyond the statute of limitations for crimes against humanity. I’m sure you don’t have the same attitude towards Nazi butchers of the Third Reich. While I could, and have, written about the most recent crimes of the Israeli government in Jenin and elsewhere, the Sabra and Shatila massacre is still worth talking about since the current crimes are only a continuation of the past. Likewise, Sharon’s guilt in the Sabra Shatila massacre is worth mentioning.
Becky Johnson shows here extreme ignorance by claiming that this massacre was carried out by the Lebanese government. The Lebanese government had nothing to do with it. The massacre was carried out both by the Israeli military under the command of Sharon and by Israel's allies in Lebanon, the Christian Phalangists.
With the testimony Mrs. Sersawi in the Belgium appeals court on the Israeli government’s war crimes, which I’ve posted twice, I've provided Becky Johnson with clear evidence of the involvement of both the Israeli government and Lebanese Christian Phalangists in this mass murder of unarmed civilians, many that had been slaughtered after being taken prisoner by Israel. Among the dead was Mrs. Sersawi’s husband. Yet you Becky have chosen to ignore this evidence I have provided you to absurdly claim that this mass murder was only the killing of 35 combatants and that it was the work of the Lebanese government.
I will post Mrs. Sersawi’s testimony here once again at the end of this writing.
Prior to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon both Ariel Sharon and Bashir Gemayel had declared that they would create a panic amongst Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon that would reduce the numbers living there from 500,000 to 50,000. The Sabra and Shatila massacre was part of this stated goal of ethnic cleansing.
Ha’aretz reported on September 26, 1982: “A long-term objective aimed at the expulsion of the whole Palestinian population of Lebanon beginning with Beirut. The purpose was to create a panic to convince [sic] all the Palestinians of Lebanon that they were no longer safe in that country.”
As such the people of Sabra and Shatila facing the Zionist slaughter of innocents, were to meet the same fate as the Palestinian towns of Dueima, Kibya, Kfar Qasim, and Deir Yassin from 1947 to 1950.
As Time Magazine admitted on October 4th, 1982, “On several occasions Gemayel told Israeli officials he would raze the camps and flatten them into tennis courts. This fits in with Israeli thinking. The Christian militia forces that were known to have gone into the camps were trained by the Israelis.”
Major Saqr of the Phalangist Militia bragged after the massacre, “The only way you will find out how many Palestinians we killed is if they ever build a subway under Beirut ... A good massacre or two will drive the Palestinians out of Beirut and Lebanon once and for all.” (Jonathan Randal of the Washington Post).
Yet the massacre was not just carried out by these murderous Phalangist militia trained and allied with Israel, Israeli forces were also directly involved.
On February 14, 1983 Der Spiegel carried an interview with one of the killers at Sabra and Shatila, who described direct Israeli participation along side his own. The article, entitled “Each of You Is An Avenger”, is a first person account of crimes against humanity:
“We met in the Schahrur wadi, in the valley of the nightingales Southeast of Beirut. It was Wednesday, the fifteenth of September ... We were approximately three hundred men from East Beirut, South Lebanon and the Akkar Mountains in the north ... I belonged to the Tiger Militia of ex-President Camile Chamoun.
“Phalange officers summoned us and brought us to the meeting place. They told us that they needed us for a “special action” ... “You are the agents of good,” the officers told us repeatedly. “Each of you is an avenger.” ...
“Then a good dozen Israelis in green uniforms without indication of rank came along. They had playing cards with them and spoke Arabic well, except that like all Jews they pronounced the hard “h” as “ch.” They were talking about the Palestinian camps Sabra and Shatila ... it was clear to us what we were to do, and we were looking forward to it.
“We had to swear an oath never to divulge anything about our action. At about 10 p.m. we climbed into an American army truck that the Israelis had given over to us. We parked the vehicle near the airport tower. There, immediately next to the Israeli positions, several such trucks were already parked.
“Some Israelis in Phalange uniforms were with the Party. “The Israeli friends who accompany you,” our officers told us “... will make your work easier.” They directed us not to make use of our firearms, if at all possible. “Everything must proceed noiselessly.” ... We saw other comrades. They had to do their work with bayonets and knives. Bloody corpses were lying in the alleys. The half-asleep women and children who cried out for help put our whole plan in danger, alarming the entire camp.
“Now I saw once again the Israelis who had been at our secret meeting. One signaled us to move back to areas of the camp entrance. The Israelis opened up with all their guns. The Israelis helped us with floodlights.
“There were shocking scenes that showed what the Palestinians were good for. A few, including women, had taken shelter in a small alley, behind some donkeys. Unfortunately we had to shoot down these poor animals to finish off the Palestinians behind them. It got to me when the animals cried out in pain. It was gruesome.
“A comrade entered a house full of women and children. The Palestinians screamed and threw their gas stoves on the ground. We sent the hard-hearted rabble to hell.
“At about four in the morning my squad went back to the truck. When there was morning light we went back into the camp. We went past bodies, stumbled over bodies, shot and stabbed all eyewitnesses. Killing others was easy once you have done it a few times.
“Now came the Israeli Army bulldozers. “Plow everything under the ground. Don’t let any witnesses stay alive.” But despite our efforts, the area was still teeming with people. They ran about and caused awful confusion. The order to “plow them under” demanded too much.
“It became clear that the pretty plan had failed. Thousands had escaped us. Far too many Palestinians are still alive. Everywhere now people are talking about a massacre and feeling sorry for the Palestinians. Who appreciates the hardships that we took upon ourselves ... Just think. I fought for twenty-four hours in Shatila without food or drink.”
Many of the mass graves were never opened, but over 3,000 people were murdered at Sabra and Shatila.
In addition to the scenes described above, Palestinians were also rounded up and systematically slaughtered in the thousands by Israeli troops in a Lebanese stadium.
As survivor Mrs. Sersawi testified in a Belgium appeals court on the Israeli governments war crimes, "The Lebanese forces militia [Phalangists] had taken us from our homes and marched us up to the entrance of the camp where a large hole had been dug in the earth. The men were told to get into it. Then the militiamen shot a Palestinian. The women and children climbed over bodies to get to this spot, but we were truly shocked by seeing this man killed in front of us and there was a roar of shouting and screams from the women. That's when we heard the Israelis on a loudspeaker shouting, 'give us your men.' We thought, 'thank God, they will save us.'
"We were told to walk up the road to the Kuwaiti Embassy, the women and children in front, the men behind. We had been separated. There were Phalangist Militiamen and Israeli soldiers walking alongside us. I could still see Hassan (her husband with whom she was 3 months pregnant) and Faraj (her brother-in-law). It was like a parade. There were several hundred of us. When we got to Cite Sportif, the Israelis put us women in a big concrete room and the men were taken to another side of the stadium. There were a lot of men from the camp and I could no longer see my husband. The Israelis went around saying 'Sit, sit.' It was 11 AM. An hour later we were told to leave. But we stood outside amid the Israeli soldiers, waiting for our men.
"Some men came out, none of them younger than 40, and they told us to be patient, that hundreds of men were still inside. Then about 4 PM an Israeli officer came out. He was wearing dark glasses and said in Arabic: 'What are you waiting for?' He said there was nobody left, that everyone had gone. There were Israeli trucks moving out with tarpaulin over them. We couldn't see inside. And there were jeeps and tanks and a bulldozer making a lot of noise. We stayed there as it got dark and the Israelis appeared to be leaving and we were very nervous. But when the Israelis had moved away, we went inside. And there was no one there. Nobody. I had been only three years married. I never saw my husband again."
Lee Kaplan keeps posting fake apologies to the Zionists under my name. I would like to ask Indy Media editors to e-mail if you have to and confirm that this is the real Steven Argue and that I would like these false apologies under my name removed.
I did not say:
"Whoever is misrepresenting me, stop it. I reiterate my apology to Lee Kaplan and Becky Johnson. After researching some of the things I wrote earlier I now realize my facts were incorrect and wish to ahve my apology on record. Please whoever is claiming to be me, please stop."
I did not say:
"Whoever is misrepresenting me, stop it. I reiterate my apology to Lee Kaplan and Becky Johnson. After researching some of the things I wrote earlier I now realize my facts were incorrect and wish to ahve my apology on record. Please whoever is claiming to be me, please stop."
There were massacres on all sides the the war in Lebanon, but one massacre doesnt justify another. Sabra and Chatila is focused on as much as it is because of its scale, its timing and its location (being in Beirut in an area with no fighting just weeks after the international community worked out a deal where the PLO left in exchange for the safety of the families they left behind). Israel probably didnt encourage the massacte but they had troops surrounding the camp and helped the Phalange go in and sat by as civilians were massacred (the number probably being in the thousands but its hard to know since the bodies were quickly buried to cover up the evidence). While it may now be PC to question the masscre and call those brining it up antiSemitic, at the time there was a huge outcry in Israel and disgust over what happened in Sabra and Chatila was as high in Israel as in other Middle Eastern countries. Why doesnt one hear similar complaints about massacrs on other sides? There was. It was the massacre of Maronites that gave both European powers and Syria their justfication for moving into Lebanon in the first place. One hears less of the other massacres now since blame inside Lebanon can be spread almost equally to all groups wheras Sabra and Chatila was partly the fault of the international community and its trust in the agreement Israel forced on the PLO to get them out of Lebanon.
>>>"Sabra and Chatila is focused on as much as it is because of its scale, its timing and its location (being in Beirut in an area with no fighting just weeks after the international community worked out a deal where the PLO left in exchange for the safety of the families they left behind)."<<<
At the time the Israelis thought some PLO terrorists remained behind. Israel sent the Phalange into those two camps to find them.
Other massacres with nearly as many fatalities had ocurred before and have occurred since then, but no one sounds a squeek as Israel can't be associated with these various cases.
>>>" Israel probably didnt encourage the massacte but they had troops surrounding the camp and helped the Phalange go in and sat by as civilians were massacred (the number probably being in the thousands but its hard to know since the bodies were quickly buried to cover up the evidence)."<<<
You're still partly misinformed or disinformed here, just as you were underinformed about Hajj Amin al-Husseini elsewhere. The Israeli commanders didn't sit by as you're claiming with the implication that there was some sort of Israeli awareness of the massacre before or during its occurence. Likewise, you're shooting for the thousands estimate of fatalities whereas the real toll was 880 at most as the claimed by the UN (Israeli intelligence puts the number at 700-800). All the claims that exceed 880 originate in mendacious propaganda. If it's truth you're after, you'll cease to defend or apologize for the thousands figure.
>>>"While it may now be PC to question the masscre and call those brining it up antiSemitic, at the time there was a huge outcry in Israel and disgust over what happened in Sabra and Chatila was as high in Israel as in other Middle Eastern countries. Why doesnt one hear similar complaints about massacrs on other sides? There was. It was the massacre of Maronites that gave both European powers and Syria their justfication for moving into Lebanon in the first place. One hears less of the other massacres now since blame inside Lebanon can be spread almost equally to all groups wheras Sabra and Chatila was partly the fault of the international community and its trust in the agreement Israel forced on the PLO to get them out of Lebanon."<<<
The simple and most unfortunate truth is that no one makes a fuss over other massacres even remotely as much as the commotion we've witnessed regarding Sabra and Shatila, because nearly all moral issues stemming from such bloodbaths perpetrated where Israel isn't an ally of the offending party are glossed over as if conscience is something to raise and act on in public fora only where Israel is concerned, else such atrocities are regarded almost as unavoidable as natural catastrophes wrought by bad weather.
At the time the Israelis thought some PLO terrorists remained behind. Israel sent the Phalange into those two camps to find them.
Other massacres with nearly as many fatalities had ocurred before and have occurred since then, but no one sounds a squeek as Israel can't be associated with these various cases.
>>>" Israel probably didnt encourage the massacte but they had troops surrounding the camp and helped the Phalange go in and sat by as civilians were massacred (the number probably being in the thousands but its hard to know since the bodies were quickly buried to cover up the evidence)."<<<
You're still partly misinformed or disinformed here, just as you were underinformed about Hajj Amin al-Husseini elsewhere. The Israeli commanders didn't sit by as you're claiming with the implication that there was some sort of Israeli awareness of the massacre before or during its occurence. Likewise, you're shooting for the thousands estimate of fatalities whereas the real toll was 880 at most as the claimed by the UN (Israeli intelligence puts the number at 700-800). All the claims that exceed 880 originate in mendacious propaganda. If it's truth you're after, you'll cease to defend or apologize for the thousands figure.
>>>"While it may now be PC to question the masscre and call those brining it up antiSemitic, at the time there was a huge outcry in Israel and disgust over what happened in Sabra and Chatila was as high in Israel as in other Middle Eastern countries. Why doesnt one hear similar complaints about massacrs on other sides? There was. It was the massacre of Maronites that gave both European powers and Syria their justfication for moving into Lebanon in the first place. One hears less of the other massacres now since blame inside Lebanon can be spread almost equally to all groups wheras Sabra and Chatila was partly the fault of the international community and its trust in the agreement Israel forced on the PLO to get them out of Lebanon."<<<
The simple and most unfortunate truth is that no one makes a fuss over other massacres even remotely as much as the commotion we've witnessed regarding Sabra and Shatila, because nearly all moral issues stemming from such bloodbaths perpetrated where Israel isn't an ally of the offending party are glossed over as if conscience is something to raise and act on in public fora only where Israel is concerned, else such atrocities are regarded almost as unavoidable as natural catastrophes wrought by bad weather.
"there was some sort of Israeli awareness of the massacre before or during its occurence"
Reporters saw what was going on and calls werre made to government officials with no apparent result. Robert Fisk reports to have seen Israeli planes drop flares over the camps allowing for the light needed for those who carried out the massacres to carry them out (the intention mayh ave been to give them light to look for militants from the the Amal militia but Israel should have known the history of the Phalange and known what helping them into the camp meant).
"Israeli intelligence puts the number at 700-800"
They also were severely under-reporting casualties thoughout the entire war (reporting almost no deaths from the bombing of West Beirut despite reports from even proIsrael correspondents to the contrary) so why should they be believed in this one case? Wouldnt you expect in a massacre blamed on Israel by Palestinians, one would expect Israel to underestimate the casualties and the Palestinians to overestimate the casualties? Assuming 800 is a severe underestimate perhaps 1000-3000 would be the real number. Im not sure what number the PLO claimed at the time.
"At the time the Israelis thought some PLO terrorists remained behind"
Thousands of PLO militants were escorted by the international community out of Lebanon. The idea that Israel thought there were PLO militants left is not that credible especially since they should have easilly know than the attacks that occured after the PLO left were most likely by the Amal Militia, Islamic Amal, or the other militant groups that later grew in strength until they were able to force Israel out of the country. The use of the word "terrorist" is pretty troubling since that was the word used by the Phalange for all Palestinians (giving them the justfication for killing everyone); Robert Fisk's description of how the word was used by those carrying out the massacres makes use of the word in the context of Lebanon very troubling since as a word it was applied by many in Lebanon to all Palestinians indescrimiantely and took on a Nazi subhumanish tone ( it was a term used even by Islamic Lebanese groups that wanted to cleanse Lebanon of Palestinians refugees who they saw as dirty and poor and hence not worthy of life)
---
It still amazes me how arguing justification for the massacre is now en vogue in certain right-wing groups, when it had such a strong impact on even Israel's view of itself at the time. In the end its all politics; right-wingers loved Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan with Reagan making speech after speach about how great it was they were fighting the godless Communists (and there was even a Rambo movie portraying Hekmatyar asa hero) and suddenly after the political winds have changed and its been determined Islamic fundamentalism rather than Communism is "the enemy" suddenly the same militants the US backed and crazy murders who one cant event pretend to try to understand. Or one can even look at how the US press treats Vietnam with a huge change suddenly taking place after Iraq started where any mention of US war crimes is no longer allowed despite talk of the war crimes having been peerfectly acceptable (and dealt with in many popular movies) just years before.
When Sabra and Shatilla took place Israel was shocked and there was moral outrage but US politics has now become so polorized that supporters of Israel have become dismissive of something that brought hundreds of thousands into the streets of Israel at the time because of its attrociousness and the belief by many Israelis at the time that their government was behind what happened.
----
The following is from Human Rights Watch:
Details of the massacre: The massacre at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps occurred between September 16 and 18, 1982, after Israel Defense Forces (“IDF”) then occupying Beirut and under Ariel Sharon´s overall command as Israeli Defense Minister permitted members of the Phalange militia into the camps. The precise civilian death toll most likely will never be known. Israeli military intelligence estimated that between 700 and 800 people were killed in Sabra and Shatilla during the sixty-two-hour rampage, while Palestinian and other sources have claimed that the dead numbered up to several thousand. The victims included infants, children, women (including pregnant women), and the elderly, some of whom were mutilated or disemboweled before or after they were killed. Journalists who arrived on the scene immediately after the massacre also saw evidence of the summary execution of young men. To cite only one contemporaneous account, that of Thomas Friedman of the New York Times: “[M]ostly I saw groups of young men in their twenties and thirties who had been lined up against walls, tied by their hands and feet, and then mowed down gangland-style with fusillades of machine-gun fire.”
By all accounts, the perpetrators of this indiscriminate slaughter were members of the Phalange (or Kata´eb, in Arabic) militia, a Lebanese force that was armed by and closely allied to Israel since the outbreak of Lebanon´s civil war in 1975. It must be noted, however, that the killings were carried out in an area under IDF control. An IDF forward command post was situated on the roof of a multi-story building located some 200 meters southwest of the Shatilla camp.
Findings of the Kahan Commission:
In February 1983, the three-member Israeli official independent commission of inquiry charged with investigating the events known as the Kahan Commission named former Defense Minister Sharon as one of the individuals who "bears personal responsibility" for the Sabra and Shatilla massacre.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/06/23/isrlpa97.htm
"Sharon's specific command responsibility arises from the fact that he was minister of defense in touch with the field commanders, that he actually was present there in Beirut, that he met with the Phalange leadership, and it was he that gave the directions and orders that resulted in the Phalange entering the camps in September."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0624-02.htm
Reporters saw what was going on and calls werre made to government officials with no apparent result. Robert Fisk reports to have seen Israeli planes drop flares over the camps allowing for the light needed for those who carried out the massacres to carry them out (the intention mayh ave been to give them light to look for militants from the the Amal militia but Israel should have known the history of the Phalange and known what helping them into the camp meant).
"Israeli intelligence puts the number at 700-800"
They also were severely under-reporting casualties thoughout the entire war (reporting almost no deaths from the bombing of West Beirut despite reports from even proIsrael correspondents to the contrary) so why should they be believed in this one case? Wouldnt you expect in a massacre blamed on Israel by Palestinians, one would expect Israel to underestimate the casualties and the Palestinians to overestimate the casualties? Assuming 800 is a severe underestimate perhaps 1000-3000 would be the real number. Im not sure what number the PLO claimed at the time.
"At the time the Israelis thought some PLO terrorists remained behind"
Thousands of PLO militants were escorted by the international community out of Lebanon. The idea that Israel thought there were PLO militants left is not that credible especially since they should have easilly know than the attacks that occured after the PLO left were most likely by the Amal Militia, Islamic Amal, or the other militant groups that later grew in strength until they were able to force Israel out of the country. The use of the word "terrorist" is pretty troubling since that was the word used by the Phalange for all Palestinians (giving them the justfication for killing everyone); Robert Fisk's description of how the word was used by those carrying out the massacres makes use of the word in the context of Lebanon very troubling since as a word it was applied by many in Lebanon to all Palestinians indescrimiantely and took on a Nazi subhumanish tone ( it was a term used even by Islamic Lebanese groups that wanted to cleanse Lebanon of Palestinians refugees who they saw as dirty and poor and hence not worthy of life)
---
It still amazes me how arguing justification for the massacre is now en vogue in certain right-wing groups, when it had such a strong impact on even Israel's view of itself at the time. In the end its all politics; right-wingers loved Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan with Reagan making speech after speach about how great it was they were fighting the godless Communists (and there was even a Rambo movie portraying Hekmatyar asa hero) and suddenly after the political winds have changed and its been determined Islamic fundamentalism rather than Communism is "the enemy" suddenly the same militants the US backed and crazy murders who one cant event pretend to try to understand. Or one can even look at how the US press treats Vietnam with a huge change suddenly taking place after Iraq started where any mention of US war crimes is no longer allowed despite talk of the war crimes having been peerfectly acceptable (and dealt with in many popular movies) just years before.
When Sabra and Shatilla took place Israel was shocked and there was moral outrage but US politics has now become so polorized that supporters of Israel have become dismissive of something that brought hundreds of thousands into the streets of Israel at the time because of its attrociousness and the belief by many Israelis at the time that their government was behind what happened.
----
The following is from Human Rights Watch:
Details of the massacre: The massacre at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps occurred between September 16 and 18, 1982, after Israel Defense Forces (“IDF”) then occupying Beirut and under Ariel Sharon´s overall command as Israeli Defense Minister permitted members of the Phalange militia into the camps. The precise civilian death toll most likely will never be known. Israeli military intelligence estimated that between 700 and 800 people were killed in Sabra and Shatilla during the sixty-two-hour rampage, while Palestinian and other sources have claimed that the dead numbered up to several thousand. The victims included infants, children, women (including pregnant women), and the elderly, some of whom were mutilated or disemboweled before or after they were killed. Journalists who arrived on the scene immediately after the massacre also saw evidence of the summary execution of young men. To cite only one contemporaneous account, that of Thomas Friedman of the New York Times: “[M]ostly I saw groups of young men in their twenties and thirties who had been lined up against walls, tied by their hands and feet, and then mowed down gangland-style with fusillades of machine-gun fire.”
By all accounts, the perpetrators of this indiscriminate slaughter were members of the Phalange (or Kata´eb, in Arabic) militia, a Lebanese force that was armed by and closely allied to Israel since the outbreak of Lebanon´s civil war in 1975. It must be noted, however, that the killings were carried out in an area under IDF control. An IDF forward command post was situated on the roof of a multi-story building located some 200 meters southwest of the Shatilla camp.
Findings of the Kahan Commission:
In February 1983, the three-member Israeli official independent commission of inquiry charged with investigating the events known as the Kahan Commission named former Defense Minister Sharon as one of the individuals who "bears personal responsibility" for the Sabra and Shatilla massacre.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/06/23/isrlpa97.htm
"Sharon's specific command responsibility arises from the fact that he was minister of defense in touch with the field commanders, that he actually was present there in Beirut, that he met with the Phalange leadership, and it was he that gave the directions and orders that resulted in the Phalange entering the camps in September."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0624-02.htm
The person who posted here last and whose post was ultimately removed was on to something. Human Rights Watch isn't a reliable source in this case (among others). Same with those biased "reporters" like Robert Fisk. Moreover, the supposedly faulty estimates dolled out by Israeli intelligence regarding other cases and periods are irrelevant to this discussion.
Do you think Robert Fisk is an unreliable news source with regard to Lebanon? If so why? He has become very vocal in his views on the conflicts in the region but that came as a result not a cause of what he reported on in Lebanon. Fisk was one of the first reporters to have witnessed the deaths from the Sabra and Chatila massacre and it really effected him. Fisk also had plenty of reasons to be strongly biased against the forces that opposed Israel and the US since they kidnapped many of his friends including Terry Anderson (who he had worked closely with). Fisk was also one of the only outside witnesses to the Syrian massacre at Hama and reported extensively on the brutality of Saddam Hussein.
If one cant trust HRW, award winning reports (and I have even heard proIsrael types try to demonize the BBC) who can one trust? Fisk was obviously far more independent from the conflict than Israeli Intelligence or the PLO. Thomas Friedman also gave similar reports to Fisk and he was tarred as having an antiIsrael bias because of his discriptions of what he witnessed. In the US the proIsraekl crowd will even demonize stuff from Haaertz as being antiIsrael. One should at least distiniguish political disagreement with disagreement over facts. I personally find the current Thomas Friedman's support for the war in the Iraq highly distasteful but I dont question the factuality of what he says (just the opinions he draws from the facts). You may disgaree with FIsk, but do you thiink he is a liar or misrepesented what he saw?
If one cant trust HRW, award winning reports (and I have even heard proIsrael types try to demonize the BBC) who can one trust? Fisk was obviously far more independent from the conflict than Israeli Intelligence or the PLO. Thomas Friedman also gave similar reports to Fisk and he was tarred as having an antiIsrael bias because of his discriptions of what he witnessed. In the US the proIsraekl crowd will even demonize stuff from Haaertz as being antiIsrael. One should at least distiniguish political disagreement with disagreement over facts. I personally find the current Thomas Friedman's support for the war in the Iraq highly distasteful but I dont question the factuality of what he says (just the opinions he draws from the facts). You may disgaree with FIsk, but do you thiink he is a liar or misrepesented what he saw?
>>>"Do you think Robert Fisk is an unreliable news source with regard to Lebanon?" "You may disgaree with FIsk, but do you thiink he is a liar or misrepesented what he saw?"<<<
Yes, Robert Fist lied and misrepresented the Sabra & Shatila massacre. I'm sure you have some justifications why you don't believe the 880 death toll figure touted by the UN, but parting with erroneous conceptions isn't the easiest thing do to. I should know -- I didn't have a picnic adapting to the reality that more than several thousand local Arabs were ethnically cleansed from what's presently Israel proper during the war of independence in 1948.
>>>"(and I have even heard proIsrael types try to demonize the BBC)"<<<
The BBC barely needs to be demonized. Their Misdeast reporting is severely slanted in the Palestinians' favor and also anti-Israel. I've even had an exchange with a young Liberal American gal who went to school in London, where she admitted the BBC is decidedly anti-Israel.
>>>"If one cant trust HRW, award winning reports who can one trust?"<<<
I can only suggest one remedy, though it might not be comprehensive: regularly try to verify the veracity of their reports on websites like Honestreporting and CAMERA and occasionally read the JPost.
>>>"Thomas Friedman also gave similar reports to Fisk and he was tarred as having an antiIsrael bias because of his discriptions of what he witnessed."<<<
Friedman has a history of anti-Israel bias. So what if he's Jewish?
>>>"In the US the proIsraekl crowd will even demonize stuff from Haaertz as being antiIsrael."<<<
This paper is a far leftist one and not mainstream. One of the latest antics I am aware of by some of Ha'aretz's staff was to arrange a political comeback into relevance for Arafat in the form of an interview where he floated perhaps his last trial balloons of deception. There are Meretz types who have canceled (or haven't renewed) their Ha'aretz subscriptions as even they have concluded the paper has become rather anti-Israel and too pro-Palestinian. One such Israeli is the writer Irit Linor who even wrote the chief editor or publisher at the time, Amos Shoken, and gave him a piece of her mind.
Ha'aretz publishes anti-Zionist material too. Is it any wonder the "pro-Israel crowd" "demonizes" this newspaper? To you perhaps it's a surprise though.
>>>"One should at least distiniguish political disagreement with disagreement over facts."<<<
Exactly. That's why I reject all the lies being told about the Sabra and Shatila massacre, the Jenin battle and other events.
Yes, Robert Fist lied and misrepresented the Sabra & Shatila massacre. I'm sure you have some justifications why you don't believe the 880 death toll figure touted by the UN, but parting with erroneous conceptions isn't the easiest thing do to. I should know -- I didn't have a picnic adapting to the reality that more than several thousand local Arabs were ethnically cleansed from what's presently Israel proper during the war of independence in 1948.
>>>"(and I have even heard proIsrael types try to demonize the BBC)"<<<
The BBC barely needs to be demonized. Their Misdeast reporting is severely slanted in the Palestinians' favor and also anti-Israel. I've even had an exchange with a young Liberal American gal who went to school in London, where she admitted the BBC is decidedly anti-Israel.
>>>"If one cant trust HRW, award winning reports who can one trust?"<<<
I can only suggest one remedy, though it might not be comprehensive: regularly try to verify the veracity of their reports on websites like Honestreporting and CAMERA and occasionally read the JPost.
>>>"Thomas Friedman also gave similar reports to Fisk and he was tarred as having an antiIsrael bias because of his discriptions of what he witnessed."<<<
Friedman has a history of anti-Israel bias. So what if he's Jewish?
>>>"In the US the proIsraekl crowd will even demonize stuff from Haaertz as being antiIsrael."<<<
This paper is a far leftist one and not mainstream. One of the latest antics I am aware of by some of Ha'aretz's staff was to arrange a political comeback into relevance for Arafat in the form of an interview where he floated perhaps his last trial balloons of deception. There are Meretz types who have canceled (or haven't renewed) their Ha'aretz subscriptions as even they have concluded the paper has become rather anti-Israel and too pro-Palestinian. One such Israeli is the writer Irit Linor who even wrote the chief editor or publisher at the time, Amos Shoken, and gave him a piece of her mind.
Ha'aretz publishes anti-Zionist material too. Is it any wonder the "pro-Israel crowd" "demonizes" this newspaper? To you perhaps it's a surprise though.
>>>"One should at least distiniguish political disagreement with disagreement over facts."<<<
Exactly. That's why I reject all the lies being told about the Sabra and Shatila massacre, the Jenin battle and other events.
Lee Kaplan wrote, "Mr. Kaplan informs us he hasn't time to come in here himself, but we asked him about Buffy's questions. He said to say as soon as she gives out all her personal information, including, address, who she works for on here, phone numbers, etc, he will comply for her and do the same. (A good answer to give a bimbo)."
Someone made a list earlier of people attacked by Kaplan:
Here is a quick review of all the groups/people Lee and his fellow agents have attacked (either directly or by using unethical scare tactics to frighten sensitive populations):
1. Teachers, k-12
2. Teachers, college
3. Gardeners(!!)
4. Older Jewish Americans who have either been through the Holocaust or had family members who went through it.
5. Liberal American Jews, who are the MAJORITY of American Jews
6. Arab Americans
7. Muslim Americans
8. Peace Groups -- many, many, many all over the U.S.
9. Quakers
10. Mennonites
11. Church of the Brethren
12. Church of Presbyterians
13. Tikkun
14. Gush Shalom
15. Mideast Children's Alliance
16. Democrats
17. Women's International League of Peace and Freedom
18. Peace and Freedom Party
19. John Kerry
20. A.N.S.W.E.R.
21. Michael Moore
22. International Solidarity Movement
23. Student groups (esp. Muslim Student Associations)
22. Uri Averny
23. Al Franken
24. Teresa Heinz Kerry
25. Noam Chomsky
26. Edward Said
26.5 Alec Baldwin
Locally.....
27. George of FRSC
28. All of FRSC
29. Resource Center for Nonviolence
30. Santa Cruz City Council
31. Scott Kennedy, former mayor
32. Joe Williams, Peace & Freedom Party candidate for 17th dist.
33. Emily Reily
34. Steve Argue
Gee.... I'm beginning to feel like an insult from Agent Lee is a badge of HONOR.
Feel free to add to the list. (Who is next? BARBARA STREISAND??)
Yep.
35. Barbara Streisand
36. Harry Belafonte
37.Whoopi Goldberg.....
And then with Kaplan's tirades I added:
Kaplan writes, "So Steven Argue is a botanist. Does that mean he grows pot in Santa Cruz?" Add to list:
38. Botanists
39. Santa Cruz
Now, with Kaplan using a sexist term like bimbo against a woman inquiring into his work we must add:
40. Women
Hey Agent Kaplan, I thought you said you were a journalist, why now so touchy about your job?
Lee Kaplan, both racist and sexist, both for the war in Iraq and against working class people at home.
It is indeed a funny kind of journalist who can't spell and by his own admission spends his time infiltrating organizations and giving information to Interpol and the Israeli government.
Someone made a list earlier of people attacked by Kaplan:
Here is a quick review of all the groups/people Lee and his fellow agents have attacked (either directly or by using unethical scare tactics to frighten sensitive populations):
1. Teachers, k-12
2. Teachers, college
3. Gardeners(!!)
4. Older Jewish Americans who have either been through the Holocaust or had family members who went through it.
5. Liberal American Jews, who are the MAJORITY of American Jews
6. Arab Americans
7. Muslim Americans
8. Peace Groups -- many, many, many all over the U.S.
9. Quakers
10. Mennonites
11. Church of the Brethren
12. Church of Presbyterians
13. Tikkun
14. Gush Shalom
15. Mideast Children's Alliance
16. Democrats
17. Women's International League of Peace and Freedom
18. Peace and Freedom Party
19. John Kerry
20. A.N.S.W.E.R.
21. Michael Moore
22. International Solidarity Movement
23. Student groups (esp. Muslim Student Associations)
22. Uri Averny
23. Al Franken
24. Teresa Heinz Kerry
25. Noam Chomsky
26. Edward Said
26.5 Alec Baldwin
Locally.....
27. George of FRSC
28. All of FRSC
29. Resource Center for Nonviolence
30. Santa Cruz City Council
31. Scott Kennedy, former mayor
32. Joe Williams, Peace & Freedom Party candidate for 17th dist.
33. Emily Reily
34. Steve Argue
Gee.... I'm beginning to feel like an insult from Agent Lee is a badge of HONOR.
Feel free to add to the list. (Who is next? BARBARA STREISAND??)
Yep.
35. Barbara Streisand
36. Harry Belafonte
37.Whoopi Goldberg.....
And then with Kaplan's tirades I added:
Kaplan writes, "So Steven Argue is a botanist. Does that mean he grows pot in Santa Cruz?" Add to list:
38. Botanists
39. Santa Cruz
Now, with Kaplan using a sexist term like bimbo against a woman inquiring into his work we must add:
40. Women
Hey Agent Kaplan, I thought you said you were a journalist, why now so touchy about your job?
Lee Kaplan, both racist and sexist, both for the war in Iraq and against working class people at home.
It is indeed a funny kind of journalist who can't spell and by his own admission spends his time infiltrating organizations and giving information to Interpol and the Israeli government.
"The BBC barely needs to be demonized. Their Misdeast reporting is severely slanted in the Palestinians' favor and also anti-Israel."
When on can't agree on facts, there really is no place to start a discussion. The BBC, Friedman and Fisk have a bias and show it in their choice of coverage. I tend to see Friedman and the neocons as way too sympathetic towards the current government of Israel and you obviously feel the opposite. I also think the BBC has a Western bias that results in coverage that tends to favor Israel. List most media there is a bias in that what is covered starts from the numbers of reporters willing to go to a location, and since there are more safe places to stay in Israel than the West Bank and Gaza one is going to get more coverage from an Israeli rather than a Palestinian point of view. Some BBC reporters are going to risk going on trips into war torn areas but they usually go back to their nice hotels and one just cant find the safe places to stay the BBC requires in the West Bank and Gaza.
Why then does one hear this constant talk of BBC bias against Israel, LA Times bias against Israel etc... It seems to me that when any news source ever covers any news from a Palestinian persepective they are automatically accused of distorting facts and even antiSemitism. I wouldnt be surprised if many Palestinians also felt strongly enough about the conflict that any news from the Israeli perspective is also considered suspect. But Palestinians dont have as loud voices in the West as do supporters of Israel so one constantly hears the complaint. I guess its not surprising in that most British people might feel the same about a news report including interviews with IRA supporters, most Indians might feel the same about a news report conatining mainly interviews with those who want Kasmir to be part of Pakistan etc... In terms of specific reports there is of course a small element of truths in all of these complaints; a report on Isreal killing a bunch of civilians in a rocket attack on a car in a populated city is going to be biase against Israel even if there are a few quotes from Israelis about why the attack occured, likewise a report about a suicide bombing on a bus in Israel by a Palestinian is bound to be biased against Palestinians. One can complain about biased news sources that only carry reports on one side but one shouldnt complain about the invididual reports especially if they are things that deserve news coverage. Al Jazeera tends focus heavilly on news from one side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Jerusalem Post tends to focus very heavilly on the other side. Both are semirespectible and rarely lie in their news coverage, and one could get an ok view of the conflict by reading the J Post and Al Jazeera, but if you look at Reuters, the AP, and the BBC you get a pretty equal amount of coverage of the major events (even if there are a lotr more interviews with Israelis and the Westernized middle class in the region more than everyday people in Arab countries)
The real danger of people going around calling all reports they disagree with lies rather than arguing over interpretation of facts is that it results in political polarization and arguments where both sides talk past each other. It also causes many news sources to drop all coverage of either side of a conflict since no matter what they do they will come under attack. (Of course you also have people like Fisk who risk their lives to cover facts and then find themselves under extreme attack for telling the truth; in the case of individuals the usual result is radicalization and bias which is then used to justify the original demonization of the reporters original reports which did not contain bias).
When on can't agree on facts, there really is no place to start a discussion. The BBC, Friedman and Fisk have a bias and show it in their choice of coverage. I tend to see Friedman and the neocons as way too sympathetic towards the current government of Israel and you obviously feel the opposite. I also think the BBC has a Western bias that results in coverage that tends to favor Israel. List most media there is a bias in that what is covered starts from the numbers of reporters willing to go to a location, and since there are more safe places to stay in Israel than the West Bank and Gaza one is going to get more coverage from an Israeli rather than a Palestinian point of view. Some BBC reporters are going to risk going on trips into war torn areas but they usually go back to their nice hotels and one just cant find the safe places to stay the BBC requires in the West Bank and Gaza.
Why then does one hear this constant talk of BBC bias against Israel, LA Times bias against Israel etc... It seems to me that when any news source ever covers any news from a Palestinian persepective they are automatically accused of distorting facts and even antiSemitism. I wouldnt be surprised if many Palestinians also felt strongly enough about the conflict that any news from the Israeli perspective is also considered suspect. But Palestinians dont have as loud voices in the West as do supporters of Israel so one constantly hears the complaint. I guess its not surprising in that most British people might feel the same about a news report including interviews with IRA supporters, most Indians might feel the same about a news report conatining mainly interviews with those who want Kasmir to be part of Pakistan etc... In terms of specific reports there is of course a small element of truths in all of these complaints; a report on Isreal killing a bunch of civilians in a rocket attack on a car in a populated city is going to be biase against Israel even if there are a few quotes from Israelis about why the attack occured, likewise a report about a suicide bombing on a bus in Israel by a Palestinian is bound to be biased against Palestinians. One can complain about biased news sources that only carry reports on one side but one shouldnt complain about the invididual reports especially if they are things that deserve news coverage. Al Jazeera tends focus heavilly on news from one side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Jerusalem Post tends to focus very heavilly on the other side. Both are semirespectible and rarely lie in their news coverage, and one could get an ok view of the conflict by reading the J Post and Al Jazeera, but if you look at Reuters, the AP, and the BBC you get a pretty equal amount of coverage of the major events (even if there are a lotr more interviews with Israelis and the Westernized middle class in the region more than everyday people in Arab countries)
The real danger of people going around calling all reports they disagree with lies rather than arguing over interpretation of facts is that it results in political polarization and arguments where both sides talk past each other. It also causes many news sources to drop all coverage of either side of a conflict since no matter what they do they will come under attack. (Of course you also have people like Fisk who risk their lives to cover facts and then find themselves under extreme attack for telling the truth; in the case of individuals the usual result is radicalization and bias which is then used to justify the original demonization of the reporters original reports which did not contain bias).
Some days ago, I was reading how journals work about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The fact is that news agencies receive information from free lance Palestinian journalists and so they only get the Palestinian Authority's point of view.
I came in here on a lark. Steven Argue is truly funny. His rants about "Zionists" as a euphemism for Jews insn't enough, he also accuses me of attacking certain groups:
Let's examine them one by one.
1. Teachers, k-12 ---Perhaps you can tell me where I attacked all grade school teachers?
2. Teachers, college--Only the ones who indoctrinate their students with made up history or do not permit the free exchange of ideas.
3. Gardeners(!!) --Only Steve Argue because it's his only academic background in geopolitics.
4. Older Jewish Americans who have either been through the Holocaust or had family members who went through it. --To the contrary, I work for an appreciation of such people. I think Steve refers to Hedy Epstein who was safely in England during the Holocaust (though her parents were in Europe) and who now tries to make people think she was in a concentration camp when she runs around for the PLO. There are some sicko Jews out there).
5. Liberal American Jews, who are the MAJORITY of American Jews --I am a liberal American Jew. I have distaste for communists and anarchists who are radical leftists and do not represent liberal Jews. By the way, who are you, Steven to talk for Jews, especially since you declare "Zionists" (Jews) have having no rights to their homes, even ones they were born in?
6. Arab Americans -Only militant Islamist. As mentioned I have had Arab Americans on Becky's show who are loyal American citizens. Unlike yourself who likes the people of CAIR and other Al Awda who preach for those who kill US soldiers and for Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
7. Muslim Americans--Again, only militant Islamists and Wahabbists.
8. Peace Groups -- many, many, many all over the U.S.
Genuine peace groups are fine. Fake
ones that support the PLO and refuse to condemn sucide bombers as at the PSM Conference and people like you I expose.
9. Quakers-Perhaps you can show where I attacked all Quakers?
10. Mennonites -The same?
11. Church of the Brethren -The same?
12. Church of Presbyterians-The same?
13. Tikkun -It is run by a fake rabbi who was never ordained. It also works to aid suicide bombers and the PLO.
14. Gush Shalom --Israeli communists mostly
15. Mideast Children's Alliance -a front groupsending money to the corrupt PA that nobody can trace. It offers no aid to Israeli children at all who were maimed by terrorist attacks.
Also fields liars like uda Walker for phony debates.
16. Democrats --Show me where I ever attacked Democrats.
17. Women's International League of Peace and Freedom -A Communist group (self-avowed, supports Fidel Castro,a dictator)
18. Peace and Freedom Party -Used to be ok, now controlled by communists and anarchists, antisemitic.
19. John Kerry-Show me where I ever criticized him.
20. A.N.S.W.E.R.-A groups funded by North Korea and Cuba, run by Ramsey Clark, Saddam Hussein's in their own words..
21. Michael Moore --A liar in his films. Attacked US soldiers.
an opportunist.
22. International Solidarity Movement-A front group set up by the PLO, Ghassan Andoni to interfere with anti-terrorist operations. I proved this.
23. Student groups (esp. Muslim Student Associations) --Supports any group that undermines the United States and Israel. Is financed by teh Saudis, a corrrupt theocracy that finances most of the world's terrorism. Spreads militant Islamic wahhabism worldwide.
22. Uri Averny _His won mother dieinherited him before her death. She was an Iraqi Jewess refugee. said ehr son was a liar and opportunist.
23. Al Franken-Show me where I attqacked Al Franken
24. Teresa Heinz Kerry -show me wehre I attacked Teresa Heinz Kerry
25. Noam Chomsky -Supported Pol Pot, calls America "Empire", blames US for Pearl Harbor. Read the "Anti-Chomsky Reader."
26. Edward Said -An academic fake. Read my articles. Formerly member of the ONC tht sent terrorists out to kill people like at Munich in 1972.
26.5 Alec Baldwin --Show me wehre I aattacked Alec Baldwin
Locally.....
27. George of FRSC -Hates Israel, uses biased reporting, Won't allow on opposing views.
28. All of FRSC -Radio Moscow in the 50's. Won't allow freedom of opposing views.
29. Resource Center for Nonviolence--Attacks Israel constantly, no opposing point of view. Frequently untruthful. Supported Arafat. Cals for Israel's destrcution, Antisemitic like Steven Argue using euphemisms.
30. Santa Cruz City Council -show me when I attacked the City Council
31. Scott Kennedy, former mayor --Buddies with terrorist leader Arafat. Supported dismantling Isrel to create Arafatist state.
32. Joe Williams, Peace & Freedom Party candidate for 17th dist. --Steve, show me where I ever spoke about or attacked him.
33. Emily Reily --Who?
34. Steve Argue _-Makes accusations I attacked people who I've never written or spoke about and soem I never even heard of. Hates Jews and tries to cover it with the euphemism Zionism. Doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground regarding Middle East history (except what he reads on websites from the PLO). Says Jews even born in Israel ahve no rights. Hates America. Loves communism. All talk about communism as he lives in America. A bullshit artist. According to Indymedia has psychological probelms and has sex with cactuses.
Let's examine them one by one.
1. Teachers, k-12 ---Perhaps you can tell me where I attacked all grade school teachers?
2. Teachers, college--Only the ones who indoctrinate their students with made up history or do not permit the free exchange of ideas.
3. Gardeners(!!) --Only Steve Argue because it's his only academic background in geopolitics.
4. Older Jewish Americans who have either been through the Holocaust or had family members who went through it. --To the contrary, I work for an appreciation of such people. I think Steve refers to Hedy Epstein who was safely in England during the Holocaust (though her parents were in Europe) and who now tries to make people think she was in a concentration camp when she runs around for the PLO. There are some sicko Jews out there).
5. Liberal American Jews, who are the MAJORITY of American Jews --I am a liberal American Jew. I have distaste for communists and anarchists who are radical leftists and do not represent liberal Jews. By the way, who are you, Steven to talk for Jews, especially since you declare "Zionists" (Jews) have having no rights to their homes, even ones they were born in?
6. Arab Americans -Only militant Islamist. As mentioned I have had Arab Americans on Becky's show who are loyal American citizens. Unlike yourself who likes the people of CAIR and other Al Awda who preach for those who kill US soldiers and for Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
7. Muslim Americans--Again, only militant Islamists and Wahabbists.
8. Peace Groups -- many, many, many all over the U.S.
Genuine peace groups are fine. Fake
ones that support the PLO and refuse to condemn sucide bombers as at the PSM Conference and people like you I expose.
9. Quakers-Perhaps you can show where I attacked all Quakers?
10. Mennonites -The same?
11. Church of the Brethren -The same?
12. Church of Presbyterians-The same?
13. Tikkun -It is run by a fake rabbi who was never ordained. It also works to aid suicide bombers and the PLO.
14. Gush Shalom --Israeli communists mostly
15. Mideast Children's Alliance -a front groupsending money to the corrupt PA that nobody can trace. It offers no aid to Israeli children at all who were maimed by terrorist attacks.
Also fields liars like uda Walker for phony debates.
16. Democrats --Show me where I ever attacked Democrats.
17. Women's International League of Peace and Freedom -A Communist group (self-avowed, supports Fidel Castro,a dictator)
18. Peace and Freedom Party -Used to be ok, now controlled by communists and anarchists, antisemitic.
19. John Kerry-Show me where I ever criticized him.
20. A.N.S.W.E.R.-A groups funded by North Korea and Cuba, run by Ramsey Clark, Saddam Hussein's in their own words..
21. Michael Moore --A liar in his films. Attacked US soldiers.
an opportunist.
22. International Solidarity Movement-A front group set up by the PLO, Ghassan Andoni to interfere with anti-terrorist operations. I proved this.
23. Student groups (esp. Muslim Student Associations) --Supports any group that undermines the United States and Israel. Is financed by teh Saudis, a corrrupt theocracy that finances most of the world's terrorism. Spreads militant Islamic wahhabism worldwide.
22. Uri Averny _His won mother dieinherited him before her death. She was an Iraqi Jewess refugee. said ehr son was a liar and opportunist.
23. Al Franken-Show me where I attqacked Al Franken
24. Teresa Heinz Kerry -show me wehre I attacked Teresa Heinz Kerry
25. Noam Chomsky -Supported Pol Pot, calls America "Empire", blames US for Pearl Harbor. Read the "Anti-Chomsky Reader."
26. Edward Said -An academic fake. Read my articles. Formerly member of the ONC tht sent terrorists out to kill people like at Munich in 1972.
26.5 Alec Baldwin --Show me wehre I aattacked Alec Baldwin
Locally.....
27. George of FRSC -Hates Israel, uses biased reporting, Won't allow on opposing views.
28. All of FRSC -Radio Moscow in the 50's. Won't allow freedom of opposing views.
29. Resource Center for Nonviolence--Attacks Israel constantly, no opposing point of view. Frequently untruthful. Supported Arafat. Cals for Israel's destrcution, Antisemitic like Steven Argue using euphemisms.
30. Santa Cruz City Council -show me when I attacked the City Council
31. Scott Kennedy, former mayor --Buddies with terrorist leader Arafat. Supported dismantling Isrel to create Arafatist state.
32. Joe Williams, Peace & Freedom Party candidate for 17th dist. --Steve, show me where I ever spoke about or attacked him.
33. Emily Reily --Who?
34. Steve Argue _-Makes accusations I attacked people who I've never written or spoke about and soem I never even heard of. Hates Jews and tries to cover it with the euphemism Zionism. Doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground regarding Middle East history (except what he reads on websites from the PLO). Says Jews even born in Israel ahve no rights. Hates America. Loves communism. All talk about communism as he lives in America. A bullshit artist. According to Indymedia has psychological probelms and has sex with cactuses.
Sorry to hear you believe the BBC's Mideast reports are pro-Israel slanted. The fact is that there's an abundance of evidence pointing to the opposite. Besides what sites like Honestreporting and CAMERA have noticed, there's a website dealing with this network's bias, including it's anti-Israel slant, http://www.bbcwatch.com . I've also found the following article by Patricia Abbatoy documenting some of the bias in question, http://jdl.org/israel/bbc_bias.shtml (it's too easy to slam the website as an excuse to ignore the article's content, but not everything featuring on that site is trash). Furthermore, Israel's governmental press bureau has also lambasted them and at one point ceased cooperation with them. There's too much smoke, or too much of a particular type of smoke, here to preclude the conclusion there's a fire.
When I spoke of Friedman I wasn't alluding to his current stances on Israel but rather to his opinion baggage. That baggage doesn't come from a pro-Israel place. This too has been analyzed and documented. Apparently he has become more sympathetic to Israel and its government since Sep 11, but not before. I don't think he embraces Sharon and Likud though.
Sefarad has shed light on one of the main reasons why the foreign press in Israel in general tends to be biased against Israel. Many times this happens in conjunction with other reasons that render many foreign reporters easily prone to faulty reportage: ignorance of the region's history and the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular as well as about various aspects of life in the Land of Israel, reporters allowing their anti-Israel sentiments to interfere with objective and ethical coverage, and even antisemitism on occasion. Also, many Palestinian locals have been working for the BBC and other networks or newspapers, even as reporters (let alone cameramen and photographers).
Obviously, for some reason I don't fathom, you haven't noticed the voices lamenting what Palestinians consider lack of adequate coverage or skewed reporting in the West.
>>>"In terms of specific reports there is of course a small element of truths in all of these complaints; a report on Isreal killing a bunch of civilians in a rocket attack on a car in a populated city is going to be biase against Israel even if there are a few quotes from Israelis about why the attack occured, likewise a report about a suicide bombing on a bus in Israel by a Palestinian is bound to be biased against Palestinians."<<<
There have been worse cases where bereaved parents had been interviewed by a network like CNN International to get a balanced picture in what I believe was a documentary about to be aired, yet this interview was omitted even though the material documenting suffering on the Palestinian side had been virtually untampered with.
I believe you meant to say both Al Jazeera and the JPost rarely report truthfully. Yet I have read accounts by Westerners who have commended the JPost for credible reporting they claimed they hadn't found in Ha'aretz and virtually every Western medium they had consumed news from. I'm not advising to take everything one would read in the JPost at face value, no. But its credibility beats nearly all other English language news organs'.
As to Honestreporting and CAMERA, to name two examples, one should expect to see parties with axes to grind against them use different fronts to cast doubts on their reliability, but
I've yet to read a credible complaint about them from an uninterested party.
>>>"The real danger of people going around calling all reports they disagree with lies rather than arguing over interpretation of facts is that it results in political polarization and arguments where both sides talk past each other. It also causes many news sources to drop all coverage of either side of a conflict since no matter what they do they will come under attack."<<<
That's why I try not to refrain from evaluating most reports from non-Zionist sources on their merits, in contrast to what you should expect from a rabidly Israel basher like "Angie" for instance, who has her array of carefully selected propagandists masquerading as objective reporters, at best, to reinforce her prejudices and opinions.
When I spoke of Friedman I wasn't alluding to his current stances on Israel but rather to his opinion baggage. That baggage doesn't come from a pro-Israel place. This too has been analyzed and documented. Apparently he has become more sympathetic to Israel and its government since Sep 11, but not before. I don't think he embraces Sharon and Likud though.
Sefarad has shed light on one of the main reasons why the foreign press in Israel in general tends to be biased against Israel. Many times this happens in conjunction with other reasons that render many foreign reporters easily prone to faulty reportage: ignorance of the region's history and the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular as well as about various aspects of life in the Land of Israel, reporters allowing their anti-Israel sentiments to interfere with objective and ethical coverage, and even antisemitism on occasion. Also, many Palestinian locals have been working for the BBC and other networks or newspapers, even as reporters (let alone cameramen and photographers).
Obviously, for some reason I don't fathom, you haven't noticed the voices lamenting what Palestinians consider lack of adequate coverage or skewed reporting in the West.
>>>"In terms of specific reports there is of course a small element of truths in all of these complaints; a report on Isreal killing a bunch of civilians in a rocket attack on a car in a populated city is going to be biase against Israel even if there are a few quotes from Israelis about why the attack occured, likewise a report about a suicide bombing on a bus in Israel by a Palestinian is bound to be biased against Palestinians."<<<
There have been worse cases where bereaved parents had been interviewed by a network like CNN International to get a balanced picture in what I believe was a documentary about to be aired, yet this interview was omitted even though the material documenting suffering on the Palestinian side had been virtually untampered with.
I believe you meant to say both Al Jazeera and the JPost rarely report truthfully. Yet I have read accounts by Westerners who have commended the JPost for credible reporting they claimed they hadn't found in Ha'aretz and virtually every Western medium they had consumed news from. I'm not advising to take everything one would read in the JPost at face value, no. But its credibility beats nearly all other English language news organs'.
As to Honestreporting and CAMERA, to name two examples, one should expect to see parties with axes to grind against them use different fronts to cast doubts on their reliability, but
I've yet to read a credible complaint about them from an uninterested party.
>>>"The real danger of people going around calling all reports they disagree with lies rather than arguing over interpretation of facts is that it results in political polarization and arguments where both sides talk past each other. It also causes many news sources to drop all coverage of either side of a conflict since no matter what they do they will come under attack."<<<
That's why I try not to refrain from evaluating most reports from non-Zionist sources on their merits, in contrast to what you should expect from a rabidly Israel basher like "Angie" for instance, who has her array of carefully selected propagandists masquerading as objective reporters, at best, to reinforce her prejudices and opinions.
I mistakenly placed Patricia Abbatoy in one of the headers above. Please excuse.
It is also true that the European media is biased against Israel.
In my country when you read information about Israel you have to analyse it by different means, depending on the newspaper. For instance, there is a newspaper which describes facts making a chronological mess so that you are misled as for what was the cause and the consequence. And there is another newspaper that sometimes, instead of describing facts of giving an opinion based on facts, gives you a pamphlet.
That is in my country, but it seems that in Europe is more or less the same.
The use of deceitful terminology.
An example of it is the use of different expressions, by the same media, to refer to terrorism, depending on the conflict. The BBC calls a "terrorist" the member of the IRA who laid a bomb against military British targets, and the Spanish TV chains do the same thing to call a member of ETA who commits an attack against the Civil Guard. But the same media systematically use the words "militant" or "activist" to refer to the Palestinian who blows a bus loaded with civilians.
Another example is the attribution of religious affiliation to the weapons of the Israeli army. For certain media, the Palestinians are attacked by "Jewish" planes and tanks.
It is also surprising the omnipresent use of the expression "occupied territories" instead of "disputed territories", such as they really are, according even to the Security Council resolutions.
-
Will Wallace has posted a correction for the (minor) incorrect information included in the article which came from the Guardian.
My question is, when is LEE KAPLAN going to post a correction about the untrue things he has said or written about:
1. MidEast Children's Alliance for Peace
2. Barbara Lubin
3. Steve Argue
4. Scott Kennedy
5. Resource Center for Nonviolence
6. Berkeley Hillel/JSU
7. Michael Lerner
8. Tikkun
9. International Solidarity Movement
10. The community of Santa Cruz
11. Indymedia
12. Arabs
13. Muslims
14. Palestinian children
15. International A.N.S.W.E.R.
16. Socialists
17. Librarians
18. Middle East Scholars
19. Quakers
20. Mennonites
22. Church of the Brethren
23. PASSIA
The list could go on and on....
Who is the one with journalistic integrity?
My question is, when is LEE KAPLAN going to post a correction about the untrue things he has said or written about:
1. MidEast Children's Alliance for Peace
2. Barbara Lubin
3. Steve Argue
4. Scott Kennedy
5. Resource Center for Nonviolence
6. Berkeley Hillel/JSU
7. Michael Lerner
8. Tikkun
9. International Solidarity Movement
10. The community of Santa Cruz
11. Indymedia
12. Arabs
13. Muslims
14. Palestinian children
15. International A.N.S.W.E.R.
16. Socialists
17. Librarians
18. Middle East Scholars
19. Quakers
20. Mennonites
22. Church of the Brethren
23. PASSIA
The list could go on and on....
Who is the one with journalistic integrity?
Or, visit the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center website:
Lee Kaplan, Dafka Exposed -- Updated Edition
Lee Kaplan, Dafka Exposed -- Updated Edition
For more information:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/171840...
It's idiotic to compare muslim support of hamas with jewish support of kahane. A sizable chunk of the islamic world appears to support hamas. Whereas, I have never even heard of any jewish people anywhere on earth other than a handful of nutjobs who supported kahane.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network