Bidding A Not-So-Fond Farewell ...

[RLENT]

I voted for a games section years ago ..... LOL
the hard feelings carry into the general forum way too many times ... it muddies the water...

Possibly an opportunity for self-improvement - assuming one can muster what it takes to practice separating a political disagreement from other mutual interests, camaraderie, and fellowship.

 

[RLENT]

The Phalange militia – the only militia that entered the camps – was tasked with rooting out terrorists, not with conducting a massacre.

Really ?

... on 14 September, [Lebanese President Bachir] Gemayel was assassinated in a massive explosion which demolished his headquarters ...

According to Linda Malone of the Jerusalem Fund, Ariel Sharon and Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan[SUP][29][/SUP] met with Phalangist militia units and invited them to enter Sabra and Shatila, claiming that the PLO was responsible for Gemayel's assassination.[SUP][30][/SUP] The meeting concluded at 3:00 pm 16 September.

An hour later, 1,500 militiamen assembled at Beirut International Airport, then occupied by Israel. Under the command of Elie Hobeika, they began moving towards the area in IDF-supplied jeeps, following Israeli guidance on how to enter it. The forces were mostly Phalangist, though there were some men from Saad Haddad's "Free Lebanon forces".[SUP][27][/SUP]

Seems like saying the PLO was responsible for President Gemayel's murder would be kind of inflammatory thing to say to the Phalangists that were about to enter the camps ...

Hmmm ... so much for that vaunted Israeli intel I guess:

Eventually, the culprit [of the bombing], Habib Tanious Shartouni, a Lebanese Christian, confessed to the crime. He turned out to be a member of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and an agent of Syrian intelligence. Palestinian and Muslim leaders denied any connection to him.[SUP][26][/SUP]

Oh ... so it wasn't the PLO ?

Ooopsies then ?

Indeed, the fact-finding commission ...

The Israeli fact-finding commission ?

Who was investigating the culpability of it's own forces in a slaughter - where something on the order of 1500 to 3000 civilians (mostly women and children) were butchered - with the world watching no less - apparently as a result of the lies of it's officials or their utter and total incompetence wrt intel ?

Yeah ... certainly no vested interest in a particular outcome there ... for those that claim to have the "most moral military in the world" ...

Contentions and accusations were advanced that even if I.D.F. personnel had not shed the blood of the massacred, the entry of the Phalangists into the camps had been carried out with the prior knowledge that a massacre would be perpetrated there and with the intention that this should indeed take place; and therefore all those who had enabled the entry of the Phalangists into the camps should be regarded as accomplices to the acts of slaughter and sharing in direct responsibility. These accusations too are unfounded.

Unfounded ... because Israel says so ?

Uh-huh ... guess the general staff of the IDF has no one to read their own newspaper and inform them of what seems to be critical intel:

According to Ariel Sharon and Elie Hobeika's bodyguard, the Phalangists were given "harsh and clear" warnings about harming civilians.[SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] However, it was by then known that the Phalangists presented a special security risk for Palestinians. Bamahane, the IDF newspaper, wrote on 1 September, two weeks before the massacre, that, in a conversation with an Israeli official, a Phalangist said: "the question we are putting to ourselves is — how to begin, by raping or killing?"[SUP][32][/SUP]

Again ... more awesome work by the IDF in handling information ...

We have no doubt that no conspiracy or plot was entered into between anyone from the Israeli political echelon or from the military echelon in the I.D.F. and the Phalangists, with the aim of perpetrating atrocities in the camps.... No intention existed on the part of any Israeli element to harm the non-combatant population in the camps. ...

Pretty self-serving statement don't you think, particularly in light of the above ?

We assert that in having the Phalangists enter the camps, no intention existed on the part of anyone who acted on behalf of Israel to harm the non-combatant population, and that the events that followed did not have the concurrence or assent of anyone from the political or civilian echelon who was active regarding the Phalangists' entry into the camps. (Emphasis added)

So it was just complete and total incompetence then ?

Why then did Sharon and Eitan assert that it was the PLO that was responsible ? (when apparently the PLO wasn't)

Seems like that would be kind of an inflammatory thing to say, when you're about to let in a militia force who was primed for revenge, a member of whom had expressed the following sentiments to an Israeli official and had been reported/published in the IDF's own newspaper some two weeks earlier:

... the question we are putting to ourselves is — how to begin, by raping or killing?

 

[RLENT]

Another aspect of Mr. Greenway's usage of the phrase "brought up to do the killing" .....

Again, largely irrelevant to anything I posted/linked ... since David Greenway was not one of the authors I used nor are events in the full quote that the above references part of anything addressed by the articles I linked ...

In fact, as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times reported at the time ...

Again, largely irrelevant to anything I posted/linked ... since Thomas Friedman was not one of the authors I used nor are events in the full quote that the above references part of anything addressed by the articles I linked ...

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IOW, Muttly, what you have done - rather than actually address anything that I provided (other than attempting to smear the authors who's articles I have cited by the use of smears such as "It's not from the pro Hamas handbook ...") - is attempt to divert the conversation off the articles I provided - which contained specific and particular allegations regarding Sharon that I was advancing - and instead insert a fake argument of refuting sources and matters which were not raised in anything I provided.

You apparently have no real argument with what I provided, and instead have sought to replace your lack of any real argument to that, with a bunch of arguments about something else.

It's very impressive ... as a display of your ability to be fallacious ...

Doesn't really address the substance of what I offered however.

In addition, the Israeli commission found Sharon indirectly responsible precisely because he failed to anticipate that a massacre would take place. ...

A man of great foresight no doubt ... but evidently he - or anyone else in the IDF - wasn't much of a newspaper reader:

According to Ariel Sharon and Elie Hobeika's bodyguard, the Phalangists were given "harsh and clear" warnings about harming civilians.[SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP]However, it was by then known that the Phalangists presented a special security risk for Palestinians. Bamahane, the IDF newspaper, wrote on 1 September, two weeks before the massacre, that, in a conversation with an Israeli official, a Phalangist said: "the question we are putting to ourselves is — how to begin, by raping or killing?"[SUP][32][/SUP]

Maybe they just use the newspapers for paper-training puppies ... or lining birdcages ...

Of course, I wonder what the Israeli official who was told by the Phalangist of their intentions did with the info ?

The commission stated in general terms that:

If it indeed becomes clear that those who decided on the entry of the Phalangists into the camps should have foreseen - from the information at their disposal and from things which were common knowledge - that there was danger of a massacre, and no steps were taken which might have prevented this danger or at least greatly reduced the possibility that deeds of this type might be done, then those who made the decisions and those who implemented them are indirectly responsible for what ultimately occurred, even if they did not intend this to happen and merely disregarded the anticipated danger.[/QUOTE]
See reply above which references foreknowledge possessed by the Israeli official it was given to, not to mention the fact that it published in the IDF's own newspaper.

In this context, with regard to Sharon, the commission found:

It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to have the Phalangists enter the camps. In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged.

Strains credulity IMO ... considering what I've already cited.

But let's see what price Mr. Sharon had to pay for what at a minimum was total incompetence - and for what may have been a deliberate act - when he was charged with a grave responsibility for thousands of civilian lives ... and how the Israeli government held him to account:

The Kahan Commission found that Ariel Sharon "bears personal responsibility",[SUP][15][/SUP]

At first, Sharon refused to resign, and Begin refused to fire him. It was only after the death of Emil Grunzweig after a grenade was tossed into the dispersing crowd of a Peace Now protest march, which also injured ten others, that a compromise was reached: Sharon would resign as Defense Minister, but remain in the Cabinet as a minister without portfolio. Notwithstanding the dissuading conclusions of the Kahan report, Sharon would later become Prime Minister of Israel.

Yes ... he clearly paid a tremendous penalty [/sarcasm off]

But ... what's up with that grenade at the peace rally thing ?

Grunzweig was killed during Peace Now rally on February 10, 1983, when right-wing activist Yona Avrushmi lobbed a grenade into the crowd.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] Nine other protesters were injured, among them future politicians Avraham Burg and Yuval Steinitz.

Wow ... you mean it wasn't a PLO Islamic terrorist that attacked a crowd of Israelis and killed an Israeli and injured 9 more ?

Sure sounds like those Israeli rightwingers aren't real big fans of peace ... killing their own countrymen and all ...

Kinda disturbing, considering just how far rightwing Israeli politics have drifted to, and body politic generally.

These findings once again directly contradict reckless charges like Mr. Greenway's .

Of course they do ... that's the whole point of a political whitewash after all ...

Mr. Greenway was also incorrect in claiming that "It was Sharon's provocative walk ...

Shame on that Mr. Greenway ... now ... what about Blumenthal, Weiss, and Bennis ... got anything about what they covered above ?

As numerous Palestinian officials have made abundantly clear, the second intifada had been planned well in advance by Mr. Arafat ...

From UNGA Res 2649:

... Noting the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, [SUP]2[/SUP] which elaborated the principle of self-determination of peoples, ....

1. Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;

IMEU: UNGA Resolution 2649 on the right of populations to resist occupation

Whoever thinks that the intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, is wrong ...

Clearly ... but unfortunately (for you) none of the folks that I cited are claiming that in the articles I linked ...

 

[RLENT]

, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palestinian people. This intifada was planned in advance ...

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... Palestinians have the right to use any means at their disposal to restore their right to self-determination. See UNGA Res 2649:

IMEU: UNGA Resolution 2649 on the right of populations to resist occupation

Further re UNSC Res 242:

The preamble[SUP][3][/SUP] refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security."

Further, UNSC 449:

The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representative of Jordan and other statements made before the Council,

Stressing the urgent need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967,252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;

How many more do you want ?

Between the UNGA and UNSC there's crap load of 'em ...

In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Israel has more UN (GA and SC) Resolutions against it than any other nation on the planet.

Which might just be an indication of how unwilling Israel is to comply and abide by international law.

The intifada did not start because of Sharon's visit to Al-Aqsa, although that was the last straw. ...

Now that's a very interesting choice of words there ... I wonder what other straws Israel placed on the Palestinians backs before that ?

The intifada began because of the desire to put an end to the occupation and because the Palestinians did not approve of the peace process in its previous form.

Probably meaning that Israel (with their lawyer aka the United States) wasn't negociating in good faith and weren't willing to compromise to something just and fair.

Indeed, as reported in Greenway's own Boston Globe, Palestinian official Faisal Husseini directly controlled ...

Good Lord ... this Greenway guy again ?

Doesn't this guy you're quoting have anything relevant to the matters discussed by Blumenthal, Weiss, and Bennis in the articles I linked ?

Or are you going to attempt to a major tour de force on refuting things that you yourself have introduced into this conversation ?

A senior Palestinian official acknowledged that yesterday's protest was orchestrated. ...

Really now ?

Imagine that ...

IMEU: UNGA Resolution 2649 on the right of populations to resist occupation

The rock-throwing youths, whose flag-raising directly challenged Israel's assertion of sovereignty over the [Temple Mount] ...

Oh ... now here's a tibit that I think I might have something for your on ... yup:

UNSC Resolution 252:

The Security Council,

Recalling General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967 and 2254 (ES-V) of 14 July 1967,

Having considered the letter of the Permanent Representative of Jordan on the situation in Jerusalem (S/8560)1/ and the report of the Secretary-General (S/8146),2/

Having heard the statements made before the Council,

Noting that since the adoption of the above-mentioned resolutions Israel has taken further measures and actions in contravention of those resolutions,

Bearing in mind the need to work for a just and lasting peace,

Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible,

1. Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with the General Assembly resolutions mentioned above;

2. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status;

3. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem; ...

S/RES/252 (1968) of 21 May 1968

How many more UNGA/UNSC Resolutions would you like on Jerusalem ?

 

[RLENT]

Dennis Ross, the former senior US peace envoy ...

Dennis Ross ?

That nice Jewish man who used to work for WINEP ? (Washington Institute for Near East Policy - spinoff of AIPAC - American Israel Public Affairs Committee)

The fellow that used to work for the MEF - the Middle East Forum - a "conservative" (probably neo) think tank founded by that crazy Islamophobe Daniel Pipes ?

The guy from State who so totally screwed up that he blew the Camp David opportunity and then had to blame Arafat for it ?

Time magazine reported, “It is somewhat surprising to see Ross emerge as an official member of Obama's team. … When Ross left the State Department in 2000, he was so critical of Yasser Arafat that some friends thought he was considering working for George W. Bush, who cut ties with the late Palestinian leader.”

Some observers pointed to the ultimate failure of the initiatives crafted by Ross as the most surprising aspect of the Obama campaign’s decision to use him as an advisor. One former Bill Clinton official told Time, "If Obama wants to embody something new that can actually succeed, it's not just a break from Bush that he's going to need, but a break from Clinton."

This Dennis Ross ?:

Ross’s role in the administration came under scrutiny in March 2010 shortly after a heated diplomatic exchange erupted between the United States and Israel over continued settlement expansion in Jerusalem. Politico’s Laura Rozen wrote that during debates in the White House over how to respond to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s intransigence on settlements, Ross argued that
“Washington needs to be sensitive to Netanyahu’s domestic political constraints including over the issue of building in East Jerusalem in order to not raise new Arab demands, while other officials including some aligned with Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell are arguing Washington needs to hold firm in pressing Netanyahu for written commitments to avoid provocations that imperil Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.”

One unnamed official told Rozen that Ross “seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests. And he doesn't seem to understand that this has become bigger than Jerusalem but is rather about the credibility of this administration.

Sounds like Bibi's kind of guy ...

I wonder if Dennis can spell H-O-N-E-S-T B-R-O-K-E-R ?

Of course, Senior Hasbarat and (IDF) Corporal Goldberg had to weigh in:

Rozen’s story spurred a heated debate of its own. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg accused Rosen of letting “an anonymous administration official to hijack her blog and accuse the National Security Council's Dennis Ross of dual-loyalty.”

No ... say it ain't so Joe ...

Goldberg’s colleague, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, countered that because Goldberg is unable to question Rozen’s expertise on Middle East issues, he “argues that an Obama official has ‘hi-jacked’ her blog. [Goldberg] calls this Obama official's statement an accusation of ‘dual loyalty,’ of ‘treason,’ of the fruit of a ‘neo-Lindberghian climate.’

But isn't the comment conceivably, substantively true? After all, a united Jerusalem under Israel's exclusive control for ever [rlent note: in violation of international law] —Netanyahu's and Palin's and Cheney's position—has been Ross's position in the past.” Sullivan pointed to a 2008 Jerusalem Post interview with Ross, in which the diplomat stated, “The fact of the matter is, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. That's a fact. It's also a fact that the city should not be divided again. That's also a fact.”

Yeah ... h-o-n-e-s-t b-r-o-k-e-r ... no possibility of any partisan lean or favoritism with ol' Dennis ...

Commenting on his resignation, Chas Freeman, a U.S. diplomat who served as head of the Middle East Policy Council in Washington, said: "None of the issues in his charge prospered during his tenure, which saw the collapse of any pretence of a peace process between Israel and the Arabs, a deepening of the Iranian conviction that a nuclear deterrent is necessary to deter Israeli or American attack, and the collapse of American prestige and influence among the Arabs and in the Islamic world more generally."

Chas Freeman is a whole other story I'll get to at some point - apparently a good guy, but not a shill for Israel - so the smear-meisters from The Lobby took him out.

Dennis Ross, the fellow also known as "Israel's Lawyer" ?

Some commentators in Israel shared this dismal view of Ross’s tenure. Writing in the liberal daily Haaretz, Barak Ravid opined: “Over the past two and a half years Dennis Ross, Middle East adviser to the U.S. president, has been one of the most central people in the White House in everything that has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He has whispered in the ear of U.S. President Barack Obama, maintained a secret and direct channel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his envoy Isaac Molho, and undermined U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell. Despite his central role, his influence on Jerusalem's actions was minimal. Despite the fact that he is considered to be Netanyahu's man in the White House, he did not manage to get almost anything from the Israeli prime minister. In Ramallah, his status is even worse. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas pushed him aside and effectively declared him a persona non grata. As far as Washington was concerned, he had a far greater impact: mainly a negative one.”

Dennis Ross, the Shemp of The Three Stooges?

Ross’ role in the Clinton administration was later assessed by the international relations scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their controversial 2006 paper for Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Mearsheimer and Walt wrote, “During the Clinton Administration … Middle East policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organizations—including Martin Indyk, [rlent note: Indyk is part of our current "processing of peace" team"] the former deputy director of research at AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined WINEP after leaving government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in Israel and often visits there. These men were among President Clinton’s closest advisors at the Camp David summit in July 2000. Although all three supported the Oslo peace process and favored creation of a Palestinian state, they did so only within the limits of what would be acceptable to Israel.”

More where that came from (including some opposing views)

Dennis Ross - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

Enough with giving ol' Dennis the Hammer ...

Do let me know if you plan on citing him again though - I'll bookmark this page so I can just grab the quotes and links real easy ...

Interviewed on Fox News, Ambassador Ross revealed that Arafat betrayed the U.S ....

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... good ol' Denny ... we knew ye well ...

Interesting choice of words though ... given that Arafat wasn't a citizen of the US ... but Ross was ...

 

[RLENT]

Just a little refresher for everyone:

How to make the case for Israel and win

To the benefit of the many not-very-bright zionist wannabe apologists who read this blog assiduously, I decided to offer a clear and simple method of arguing the case for Israel. This clear and simple method has been distilled from a life spent listening to and reading Zionist propaganda. It is easy to follow and results are guaranteed or your money back.

So don't hesitate! Take advantage NOW of this revolutionary rhetorical system that will make YOU a great apologist for Israel in less time than it takes to shoot a Palestinian toddler in the eye.

Ready? 1..2..3..GO!​

You need to understand just one principle:

The case for Israel is made of four propositions that should always be presented in the correct escalating order.

1. We rock
2. They suck
3. You suck
4. Everything sucks

That's it. Now you know everything that it took me a lifetime to learn. The rest is details; filling in the dotted lines.

You begin by saying how great Israel is. Israel want peace; Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East; the desert blooms; kibutz; Israelis invented antibiotics, the wheel, the E minor scale; thanks to the occupation Palestinians no longer live in caves; Israel liberates Arab women; Israel has the most moral army in the world, etc.

This will win over 50% of your listeners immediately. Don't worry about the factual content. This is about brand identity, not writing a PhD. Do you really think BP is 'beyond petroleum'?

Then you go into the second point: They suck. Here you talk about the legal system of Saudi Arabia, gay rights in Iran, slave trade in the Sudan, Mohammad Atta, the burqa, Palestinians dancing after 9/11, Arafat's facial hair, etc.

There is only one additional principle you need to understand here. It will separate you from the amateurs. You need to know your audience. If you've got a crowd already disposed to racist logic, go for it with everything you have. But if you get a liberal crowd, you need to sugar coat the racism a bit. Focus on women rights, human rights, religious tolerance, "clash of civilizations", terrorism, they teach their children to hate, etc. Deep down your audience WANTS to enjoy racism and feel superior. They just need the proper encouragement so they can keep their sophisticated self-image. Give them what they crave and they'll adore you! But be careful not to 'mix n match,' because it will cost you credibility.

When you're done, there will always be dead-enders insisting that abuse of gays in Iran does not justify ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Take a deep breath, and pull the doomsday weapon: You suck!

You're a Jew-hater, Arab-lover, anti-Semite, you're a pinko, a commie, a dreamer, a naive, a self-hater, you have issues, your mother worked for the Nazis, Prince Bandar buys you cookies, you forgot you were responsible for the holocaust, etc. The more the merrier. By the time you end this barrage, only a handful would be left standing. For mopping them up, you use the ultimate postmodern wisdom: Everything sucks.

War, genocide, racism, oppression are everywhere. From the Roma in Italy to the Native-Americans in the U.S., the weak are victimized. Why pick on Israel? It's the way of the world. Look! Right is only in question between equals in power; the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Ethics, schmethics. Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Eat, drink! Carpe diem! The Palestinians would throw us into the sea if they could. Ha ha!

Trust me, that's as far as words can go. If you followed this method faithfully, you've done your work. You should leave the few who are still unconvinced to the forces of order.

Congratulations!
You are now ready to
apologize for Israel like a pro.​

Jews sans frontieres: How to make the case for Israel and win

 

[RLENT]

Hasbara:

A Hasbara manual for students to use on US univesity campuses is now available online[SUP][2][/SUP]. A summary of the techniques is provided from page 31 onwards:

Propaganda is used by those who want to communicate in ways that engage the emotions and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote a certain message.

The manual goes on to describe seven propaganda techniques:

1. Name calling: through the careful use of words, then name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol.
2. Glittering generality: Simply put, glittering generality is name calling in reverse. Instead of trying to attach negative meanings to ideas or people, glittering generalities use positive phrases, which the audience are attached to, in order to lend positive image to things. Words such as "freedom", "civilization",…
3. Transfer: Transfer involves taking some of the prestige and authority of one concept and applying it to another. For example, a speaker might decide to speak in front of a United Nations flag, in an attempt to gain legitimacy for himself or his idea.
4. Testimonial: Testimonial means enlisting the support of somebody admired or famous to endorse and ideal or campaign.
5. Plain folks: The plain folks technique attempts to convince the listener that the speaker is a 'regular guy', who is trust-worthy because the are like 'you or me'.
6. Fear: Stressing that ignoring the message will likely lead to war, terrorism[SUP][3][/SUP]
7. Bandwagon: Suggest that the stated position is mainstream and use polls to suggest this.

The Oh-fish-shall Hasbara™ manual it's bad self:

http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf

 

[RLENT]

Don't appear to be feeling the love:

Old soldiers never die, they just fade away. Or in the case of Ariel Sharon who passed over the weekend at 85, they are strapped in a vegetative state for eight years and then put to rest after a lonely funeral. The late Israeli Prime Minister was eulogized in a service at the Knesset in Jerusalem earlier today and the turnout was low. There was no scramble for foreign dignitaries to board planes and travel hundreds or thousands of miles like they did for Nelson Mandela weeks ago. No one showed up from Africa or Latin America, and Vice President Joe Biden was the only international representative to give an address.

(Article continues at link below)

Poor showing among heads of state for the lonely funeral of Ariel Sharon

The irony of the contrast between Mandela and Sharon is hard to miss:

One was fighting to free people, the other was fighting to subjugate them.

 

[RLENT]

Another one for Hasbara Howlers file ...

Hasbara Mega-Fail:

Pro-Israel zealot tries to excuse Ariel Sharon by comparing him to Hitler

https://twitter.com/arik_sharon/status/422296585155121152

#deadlycombotheuntrainedandpr

 

[muttly]

#threadjumpssharklikefonzigodwinslaw

 

[RLENT]

#threadjumpssharklikefonzigodwinslaw

Nah ... it jumped the shark back when someone decided that they would go all "logically fallacious" and start providing refutations for things that had no real bearing whatsoever on anything in thing in the thread - or were connected to it by virtue of linked articles - up to that point.

Someone had a choice: they could have chosen to read the articles, and then address the specific content those articles contained ... of course, doing so would have actually required some time and effort be spent ... as well as at least some rudimentary knowledge of the various matters that covered in the article.

Or they could just simply choose to do the copy/pasta thing - which is sure a lot easier - providing instead something that more or less amounts to a polemic ... on writers and authors that were not even part of the thread up to that point ...

Doing the former would have been a discussion.

Doing the latter is comedy.

 

[muttly]

Godwins law. Can I get a ruling please? Thanks in advance.

 

[RLENT]

Godwins law. Can I get a ruling please? Thanks in advance.

You might well wish to consider who it was that carelessly introduced the pairing in the linked conversation ...

Either that, or brush up on your understanding and comprehension of what Godwin's Law actually constitutes ... a mere mention of "Hitler" it ain't ...

The fact of the matter is, my commentary could be said to be roughly analogous to your's ... with one exception:

The difference between both commentaries would appear to be that I can actually discern the correct source of the transgression, while you are apparently unable to.

Further, I wasn't asserting Godwin-like analogy at all ... I was simply commenting on the wisdom of someone making a careless comparison, apparently without having given any consideration to possible unintended consequences that might result.

#whytheuntrainedshouldntattemptpr

#whatispositioning

 

[RLENT]

Some thoughts on Sharon's legacy by Rabbi Brant Rosen on his Shalom Rav blog:

Sharon’s Legacy: Survival at All Costs

From Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks at the funeral of Ariel Sharon today:

Like all historic leaders, Prime Minister Sharon was a complex man about whom, as you’ve already heard from his colleagues, who engendered strong opinions from everyone. But like all historic leaders, all real leaders, he had a North Star that guided him — a North Star from which he never, in my observation, never deviated. His North Star was the survival of the State of Israel and the Jewish people, wherever they resided.

In talking about his spiritual attachment to the land of Israel back in an interview in the late ‘90s, he said, and I quote, “Before and above all else, I am a Jew.
​

As a Jew – and as a human being of conscience – I submit that this myopic obsession with Jewish physical survival “before and above all else” has led the Jewish people down a very dark road indeed. In so many ways, Ariel Sharon represents the embodiment of this obsession – and I for one recoil at the suggestion that he might in any way be held up as a Jewish exemplar.

As the tributes of world leaders continue to roll in, please consider the life’s work of a man Joe Biden quite mistakenly claimed is “loved by the Jewish people:”

- In the early 1950s, as a young major in the Israeli army, Sharon led the infamous Unit 101, which carried out numerous cross-border “pre-emptive” and “retaliatory” attacks into the West Bank, deliberately killing and wounding Palestinian civilians. In the most notorious incident involving Unit 101, between October 14 and 16, 1953, soldiers under Sharon’s command massacred 69 Palestinian civilians, most of them women and children, in the West Bank town of Qibya. Sharon’s orders included “total destruction of the village and maximum harm to the villagers, again forcing them to flee.”

- On October 29, 1956, Israel attacked Egypt, part of an invasion in conjunction with Britain and France. During the resulting hostilities, soldiers under Sharon’s command committed a series of massacres of POWs, including more than 100 civilians. In one incident, Israeli soldiers shot and killed 49 Egyptian prisoners of war, including civilians, after binding their hands and forcing them into a quarry. In another, 56 Egyptian civilians were murdered while sheltering in the back of a truck. In a third incident, some 50 Egyptian civilian workers were murdered by Israeli soldiers near the town of Ras Sudar.

- Following Israel’s surprise attack against Egypt in June 1967, which resulted in Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Egyptian Sinai peninsula, and Syrian Golan Heights, Ariel Sharon, by now a general responsible for Israel’s southern command, was tasked with “pacifying” Gaza. In his efforts to crush resistance, Sharon ordered his soldiers to execute without trial any Palestinians suspected of involvement in the resistance, resulting in the killing of more than 1000 Palestinians.

- On June 6, 1982, Israel launched a massive invasion of Lebanon, masterminded by then-Defense Minister Sharon. Between June and September, the Israeli army killed between 18,000 and 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, bombarding and laying siege to the western half of the capital of Beirut.

- On September 16, 1982, under Sharon’s direction, Israeli soldiers surrounded the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and sent in about 150 of their local Christian Phalangist militia allies, even though the long and bloody history between Palestinians and Phalangists in Lebanon was well known to the Israelis. Over the next three days, between 800 and 3500 Palestinian refugees and Lebanese, mostly women, children, and the elderly, were butchered by the Phalangists, who sexually assaulted, tortured and mutilated many of their victims, in one of the worst atrocities in the modern history of the Middle East.
​

For more details on these facts – and other aspects of Sharon’s legacy that were likely not recounted at his funeral today, click here.

Sharon's Legacy: Survival at All Costs | Shalom Rav