Until you engage with the opinions and scholarship of anybody outside the Hasbara world who has honestly and ruthlessly pursued the truth about this conflict, like Norman Finkelstein, you are and remain a clown whose opinions are not to be taken seriously.
“Finkelstein has said of his parents that "they saw the world through the prism of the Nazi Holocaust. They were eternally indebted to the Soviet Union (to whom they attributed the defeat of the Nazis), and so anyone who was anti-Soviet they were extremely harsh on".[10] They supported the Soviet Union's approval of the creation of the State of Israel, as enunciated by Andrei Andreyevich Gromyko, who said that Jews had earned the right to a state, but thought that Israel had sold its soul to the West and "refused to have any truck with it".[10]”
So he was raised ardently pro Soviet communism.
Now read outside your comfort zone from the National Review (free on Apple News app if you have it) the following article: HISTORY
Anti-Zionism’s Soviet Roots
How Soviet propaganda survived the USSR.
I am unable to paste the link here (sorry) but it explains in detail how and why the various communists (Lenin, Stalin, etc) first supported Israel and Jews (they thought they would become socialists/communists) but when it became apparent that wasn’t the way it was developing they turned against the Israelis and began the narrative that they are apartheid-ists committing genoside etc. and backed the Arabs & Palistinians.
Gee, I think I do engage with the opinions and scholarship of antisemites and supporters of terrorism, if only to mock and revile them—or with you will, ruthlessly pursue the the truth. And by the way, you’re stupid and probably ugly. Hey, if you can call names, why can’t I?
Wow, such moral courage on your part, with nothing but the full weight of the Pentagon to protect you from all the savages out to tear you limb from limb!
I know that I'm critical and snarky, in general, but your understanding and description of 'the doctrine of proportionality' is plain incorrect. A quick search will clear things up for you, but from Wikipedia (I know);
"The harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" by an attack on a military objective."
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[12] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv))."
Yes, I agree, but the Left doesn't use the term in that sense. They use it—or abuse it, rather—as part of their campaign to delegitimize any military action undertaken by Israel. Believe me, those people have zero interest in the actual law of war.
My article had nothing to do with the actual law of war. It was about one aspect of the antisemitic ideology of the postmodern Left. Where's no "whatever" about it.
Hitchens would have hated wokeness. And he would’ve reviled all this antisemitism too. I think he would be with us, calling to ditch the two-state solution. Remember his disgust with Saddam Hussein and his lifelong support of the Iraq War. I think the same conviction would have inspired a hawkishness towards Hamas and Iran.
Until you engage with the opinions and scholarship of anybody outside the Hasbara world who has honestly and ruthlessly pursued the truth about this conflict, like Norman Finkelstein, you are and remain a clown whose opinions are not to be taken seriously.
“Finkelstein has said of his parents that "they saw the world through the prism of the Nazi Holocaust. They were eternally indebted to the Soviet Union (to whom they attributed the defeat of the Nazis), and so anyone who was anti-Soviet they were extremely harsh on".[10] They supported the Soviet Union's approval of the creation of the State of Israel, as enunciated by Andrei Andreyevich Gromyko, who said that Jews had earned the right to a state, but thought that Israel had sold its soul to the West and "refused to have any truck with it".[10]”
So he was raised ardently pro Soviet communism.
Now read outside your comfort zone from the National Review (free on Apple News app if you have it) the following article: HISTORY
Anti-Zionism’s Soviet Roots
How Soviet propaganda survived the USSR.
I am unable to paste the link here (sorry) but it explains in detail how and why the various communists (Lenin, Stalin, etc) first supported Israel and Jews (they thought they would become socialists/communists) but when it became apparent that wasn’t the way it was developing they turned against the Israelis and began the narrative that they are apartheid-ists committing genoside etc. and backed the Arabs & Palistinians.
Gee, I think I do engage with the opinions and scholarship of antisemites and supporters of terrorism, if only to mock and revile them—or with you will, ruthlessly pursue the the truth. And by the way, you’re stupid and probably ugly. Hey, if you can call names, why can’t I?
Wow, such moral courage on your part, with nothing but the full weight of the Pentagon to protect you from all the savages out to tear you limb from limb!
> who has honestly and ruthlessly pursued the truth about this conflict, like Norman Finkelstein
Speaking of clowns.
Keep enjoying your Nietzchean exercise of staring into the abyss.
I know that I'm critical and snarky, in general, but your understanding and description of 'the doctrine of proportionality' is plain incorrect. A quick search will clear things up for you, but from Wikipedia (I know);
"The harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" by an attack on a military objective."
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[12] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv))."
Yes, I agree, but the Left doesn't use the term in that sense. They use it—or abuse it, rather—as part of their campaign to delegitimize any military action undertaken by Israel. Believe me, those people have zero interest in the actual law of war.
Left, right, whatever - many are using the term incorrectly - or using the wrong term for what they're trying to express.
I thought that you might prefer precision and accuracy. The subtitle isn't good. Further along in the piece things improve.
Anyway, thank you
My article had nothing to do with the actual law of war. It was about one aspect of the antisemitic ideology of the postmodern Left. Where's no "whatever" about it.
Yes but they forced the same proportional response shit on us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Where then was the objection?
Hitchens wasn't Jewish!
His Wikipedia entry says that he was. Fake news?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
1/32 ethnically Jewish? And Hitchens was an *ardent* atheist, so I don't know what it would mean for him to identify as a Jew ...
Excellent essay, Thomas.
Hitchens did not like Judaism and he was no fan of Israel. See,
https://www.commentary.org/articles/meir-soloveichik/christopher-hitchens-anti-religion/
Hitchens would have hated wokeness. And he would’ve reviled all this antisemitism too. I think he would be with us, calling to ditch the two-state solution. Remember his disgust with Saddam Hussein and his lifelong support of the Iraq War. I think the same conviction would have inspired a hawkishness towards Hamas and Iran.
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it."--Hamas Covenant
There you go. That's the gang to which the comrades have lent their support.