NORMAN FINKELSTEIN AT THE United Nations Part-1.

[MrKareem01]

this is the the only jew i met that tell the truth,based on his jewish beleifes,and i commend him,he is my hero,and should speak for all the arab leaders,for he can;t be bribed,

[SantaOfNeretva]

sound is terrible !

[TodayFreedom]

The most courageous Jew on earth today. And a man with absolutely unshakable moral integrity. A man whose parents were in Auschwitz and who has chosen to see that murder is murder no matter who is doing it. You rock, Dr Norman!

[Tsnore]

I like Norman "Nads" Finkelstein - he's relentless but sound.

[AthosAmo]

The UN logo has as many sections as there are degrees in Masonry. Though there are different rites. The UN is Masonic. The square and compass is a Masonic symbol combination that forms the star "of David." There is a pyramid in the Zionist Supreme Court. The Knights Templars long ago returned to Jerusalem. They control it now.

[HenryDavidT]

The UN "Security Council" is made up of 15 nations. 10 are rotated among qualify UN member states. China, the US, Russia, England, & France are PARMANENT. In any serious "UN Security Council" resolution, there are always TWO DIFFERENT LEVELS of voting: the one is the full 15 "Security Council" voting; the second is the FIVE PERMANENT. As I said, in theory AND in practice, you can have 14 of the 15 SC voting "Yes" to a resolution, & ONE of the "big five" saying "NO" to it, and it goes nowhere.

[HenryDavidT]

NO RESOLUTION against Israel can be passed. No resolution against China for invading Tibet can be passed. ETC. Point is, even if 99% of the world's countries wanted a certain resolution passed --- say, we have all the votes of the 10 rotating countries in the SC & 4 out of the "Big Five" --- in both theory & practice, ONE of the "Big 5" can still veto it, if itself or one of its "good friends" is targeted in the resolution. The UN is a Mafia-styled institution set up & dominated by the West.

[HenryDavidT]

One of the great problems the UN has is that it is controlled by just 5 countries. And while China & Russia are usually persuaded to *abstain,* each of the "big 5's" can veto a so-called Security Council resolution, even if 98% of all of the Nations/people of the world, represented in the general assembly, wanted it passed. Each of the 5 permanents has a small group of "friendly" states they must stick by. Thus, the UN is not only corrupt & inefficient, it's also faultily built...on purposes...

[MsHShuaib]

@HenryDavidT However, China represents around 20% of the world of it's not completely undemocratice if the 10 largest nations are added as they'd probably represent over 50% of the world. Btw how can a small country such as the Maldives have the same vote as China or France which have a much larger population than the Maldives so it's difficult, in my opinion to have an ACTUAL democracy in the world.

[HenryDavidT]

@MsHShuaib Whether it's the Maldives or India, my point is, it doesn't really matter. It only matters what 5 permanent -- USA, China, Russia, England, and France -- say. Actually, they can all say "yes" or just ONE of them saying "no" and NO (serious) RESOLUTION can be passed. They can be talked into staying silent, like this recent vote to allow NATO to bomb Libya (Russia & China staying quiet). The "Security Council" and the UN General Assembly are just rubber stamps for the Big Five.

[MsHShuaib]

@HenryDavidT I agree, with you, if there is a census between the top 10 nations then yeah it's fair, but if a single prickhead can veto the whole thing, it's pretty much a load of bull, which is blocking democracy. Btw did you know that there have been times at which the US has veto the 10 member counsel, 9-1!!! I mean that's insane, EVERYBODY but the US agreed the treaty or resolution, w/e, but the US blocks it! But anyone who has that power would what's in it's national interest.

[SuperThesamman]

After what had happened in Tunis and Egypt in 25.1.2011 and soon Syria, Jordania...etc ...I feel the ending of Israel is getting close LOL...believe or not...time will tell, they will be back to 1948. not 1967

[ActaNonVerba71]

Norman is such a pimp.

[Prophet4YAHWEH]

@ActaNonVerba71 Why? What makes you say Prof Finkelstein is a "pimp?"

[ActaNonVerba71]

@Prophet4YAHWEH  In this case, it means I like him, he's "cool"

[je24t2]

Be aware that starting at 25 minutes or so in the middle of part 3 a lot of editing takes place where parts of what Norman and the audience members say are cut off repeatedly.

[devrimhan1971]

Professor Dr. Finkelstein is a great and brave man. Hiw work, knowledge and motivations shoud be an example for every intelectuall and human beeing.

It is a shame how the AIPAC, ADL and Israel tried to defame him.

Especially "Professor" Dershowitz with his insults and lies shoud be mentioned in this coherence.

Supporting Professor Dr Finkelstein is a must for everyone who is interested in politics and peace for the ME conflict.

[Tsnore]

Unlike most US politicians and tenured faculty Finkelstein has got nads and is not afraid to tell it like it is on the Israeli government/US gov't nexus and policies, stripped of media propaganda.

[killerkitty777]

@Tsnore him and Chomsky are enlightened....those calling them 'self hating' are unenlightened, fer sure

[TheOpenmindedguy]

Finkelstein is doing a great thing for humanity. Controversial my ass! He's brave to stand up for human rights and reveal the wrong doings of a bully nation. It's about time he gets to speak to the UN. One can only hope this can help open people's eyes to the terrorizing being committed by Isreal.

[amareto35]

@TheOpenmindedguy LOL..I like the part "controversial my ass!".

[diceyLee]

70 people actually saw the interview..... 2800 have seen it on YouTube..... victory for the site that was created to watch endless clips of people getting hit in the groin....

[Greywind30]

Hey genius... I bet this "witness" testified either from fatah stronghold or anonymous.

If anything this (and many other case like this) show how dangerous to be dissident and speak against any of this gang

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 @Greywind30 You seem to have an argument with yourself. Originally, you said Palestinians were being intimidated by Hamas to the point of not being able to criticize Hamas. Remember?

" fact finding in terrorist controlled town... "

Now you acknowledge such fact-finding can be carried out, and in fact, has been carried out, through the use of anonymous witnesses.So if Hamas used human shields, why isn't there a single anonymous witness saying as much to any HR investigators?

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "Now you acknowledge such fact-finding can be carried out, and in fact, has been carried out, through the use of anonymous witnesses."

Or he was in fatah stronghold aka wb. That's most likely.

I dont know how this organization collect facts but as you admit person who testify against hamas risks torture and gruesome death. It puts dumper on fact-finding finding. Dont you agree?

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Had we zero witnesses reporting Hamas HR violations, I would. But that's simply not the case. Palestinians in Gaza were interviewed by the Goldstone mission, and by other human rights investigators, and testified to very gruesome Hamas violations. Perhaps they wouldn't voice their testimonies without anonymity , but it HAS BEEN provided. How is it then that there were testimonies of Hamas torture of Palestinians, but none of Hamas human shielding? Still waiting for your answer.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

One explanation would be that gaza population is brainwashed and despite of infighting hate of Israel dominate everything else.

Other explanation would be Goldstone people ignored this part of testimony.

After all UN HR is in fact ignoring everything and anything but Israel. Its bias so obvious even Goldstone had acknowledge it

/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU&playnext=­1&videos=hXZMpeLJaIo

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 If the Gaza population is so brainwashed, how come there are testimonies of serious Hamas crimes? You really have a problem here.

As for the Goldstone report ignoring such testimony- there's zero evidence for it. It wasn't the first report to deal with this accusation, and it was, as you admit now, a rather pro-Israeli report. Yet the conclusion was the same for all reports, ZERO evidence of human shielding, though plenty of evidence of other crimes committed by Hamas.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "brainwashed, how come there are testimonies of serious Hamas crimes?"

As I said infighting (not to be mistaken for democratic dissent)

"as you admit now, a rather pro-Israeli report"

Huh?

"same for all reports, ZERO evidence of human shielding"

IF all HR report "ZERO evidence of human shielding" on part of hamas then they have ZERO credibility. There are evidence of hamas, hezbollah, fatah use of h-shield. ambulances, schools homes and even mosque and churches.

/watch?v=70Oqo_wmuGo

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Ok, let's play that game. You say infighting accounts for the testimonies of serious crimes. If so, why doesn't the infighting also lead to testimonies of human shielding (assuming it happened and all)? Is torture somehow better for Hamas reputation than human shielding?

And you've acknowledged Goldstone balanced the HR council, by pointing out it was biased against Israel. In fact, he refused to participate until its mandate also included Hamas crimes.

[xMaXiMuSx]

@igalgd

Dude Hamas won a democrcatically held elections.. you don't win those by holding people as shields. There was one person who was son of a hamas leader who said of hamas acrocrities but later was discredited because he was working for Mossad.

[igalgd]

@xMaXiMuSx I think you misunderstood me. I didn't argue they used human shields. I was merely demonstrating the inconsistency of the other guy's argument. He said they used human shields, I said there's no evidence for it, and that even though Palestinians did testify about Hamas crimes they never mentioned human shielding. He said infighting accounts for the testimonies of Hamas crimes against Palestinians. So I asked, rhetorically, why doesn't it also lead to testimonies of human shielding ?

[Greywind30]

The bottom line is ...

Israel is small democratic state in war with huge alliance of totalitarian states. It managed to survive and win 3 open war and so its enemy use all kind of underhanded dirty tactics. Terror war, embargo, oil war and propaganda war. They have unlimited resources and influence. Two words - BIG OIL and unfortunately huge brainwashed population in disposal for disposal.

If you see ME conflict as giant Goliath Israel against little defenseless arab nation you are moron.

END

[Tsnore]

Well, if it was Wikipedia then it must be accurate Mr. Moderator!

[Greywind30]

igalgd,

Lets finish this silly "a weapon"/ "as weapon"/threat word game.

"Watch dog"/dissent are important part of democracy and as much as I disagree with NF I DO NOT QUESTION HIS RIGHTS TO DISSENT.

They (B'T/NF etc) have full rights to criticize actions of Israel but while its important function of dem society it does not mean they are right in everything and they are not above criticism too.

Specifically lunatic like NF.

I also have rights to question his views. Dont I?

[Greywind30]

Usual demagoguery from Funkmoron. He exploits difference of opinions in democratic society as weapon again democracy.

He pick and choose testimony that fit his point of view.

But lets talk about facts and cold numbers.

He calls it a massacre lets compare to real massacre. Check Damour.. PLO massacre about 600 people in day with only guns and knifes and they took time doing it. So why Israeli so inefficient compare to PLO? Because they went after terrorist and civ are just this collateral.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Let's grant for the sake of argument he was selective in his treatment of testimony, since when condemning a mass killing of people is equivalent to a threat to democracy?

Now on the more basic point, namely, was he selective? He quoted government officials, including the foreign minister, cited raw data about the extent of death and destruction and even referred to soldiers who were on the ground and testified, one after another, that there was hardly any fighting. Whom did he miss

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "was he selective?"

Of course he was. He ask you to search for "Israeli soldiers burning conscience" and it is of course predetermine results it like asking to search " Israeli action are justified".

(Its useless to search for hamas burning conscience)

Imagine somebody present "Fox news" or "New Your Times" as objective voice for USA. Both main media but both bias some with Haarez.

"since when condemning a mass killing" Mass killing was in Damour. Gaza was massive sacrificing by hamas

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 He didn't ask anyone to search for "Israeli Soldiers Burning Conscience". He referred to "Breaking the Silence" which also contains testimonies of soldiers who give no indication of any significant moral compunction over what happened. What they say is also consistent with the death tolls- If there was significant fighting how come only 9 or so soldiers were killed, of which about half died of friendly fire?. @ Second point, does condemning Hamas terrorism=opposition to democracy?

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "He referred to "Breaking the Silence"

Its same thing. Hand picked testimony.

"If there was significant fighting how come only 9 or so soldiers were killed"

I'm not saying it was significant fighting but by the way even in open war Israeli had significantly less casualties

I dont get your second point

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Well, if you don't dispute the fact there was no significant fighting and if you don't dispute the data regarding the massive destruction caused by, as soldiers testified,"insane amounts of firepower". Why is this testimony handpicked?

My second point was a mere reformulation of my initial question regarding threats to democracy, since you didn't answer how condemning the killing of people is a threat to democracy.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "Why is this testimony handpicked?"

Are you saying that "breaking silence" is objective because some of those people did not have "moral objection"? Keep in mind it was not "soldiers" war. Israeli did not went in. There is other testimonies that did not get into this project "Breaking the Silence".

Here from thier web: "SInce 2004, Breaking the Silence has collected testimonies from over 650 soldiers" About a 100 a year? Its hand pick testimony

To be contunue

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Actually you didn't stop at the exploitation of democracy, you said "He exploits difference of opinions in democratic society as weapon again democracy". "a weapon against democracy"= something that can threaten democracy. And still you haven't answered my question. How does condemning the killing of people equal a weapon against democracy\ threat to democracy.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

"How does condemning the killing of people equal a weapon against democracy\ threat to democracy"

By denying rights of self defense. By calling it "killing". By supporting propaganda war of medieval theocracy against democratic country.

If crazed fanatic attack you with a sword or knife but you beat him up or even kill him its self defense. Even if you use gun against crazy man with knife its still self defense.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 See, you did talk about a threat to democracy. You say,he's a threat because he repeats Arab propaganda (says "killing"). But there would be no "killing" hadn't Israel caused 1,400 deaths, so is Israel also a threat to democracy? .Secondly, it's not just Arab propaganda that condemns Israel for targeting civilians, so do the human rights reports, are they also a threat to democracy?. Thirdly, Finkelstein never denied Israel has a right to self defense. (quote him if I'm wrong).

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "reformulation of my initial question regarding threats to democracy, since you didn't answer how condemning the killing of people is a threat to democracy."

"Exploit of democracy" that what I said. EXPLOIT=/=threat. Yes there are differences of opinions on almost everything and objective historian would examine all option. NF take only option that fit his point of view

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 How do you know other soldiers would have different things to say when granted immunity from army sanctions? How many did YOU interview?. Further, even supposing they did pick the soldiers who happened to deny there was significant fighting , you'd still have to show that these testimonies were inaccurate to prove distortion took place. But you didn't dispute the fact that there was no significant fighting (a central theme in the testimonies), so why is the testimony problematic?

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "How do you know other soldiers would have different things to say when granted immunity from army sanctions?"

Ah please! Immunity! Israel is democracy and they free to tell whatever they want without fear of gov. In fact they do.

"See, you did talk about a threat to democracy."

No I did not. LOL.

Would you please explain your fix on "threat"?

Actually dissents like NF and of course "watch dogs" organization are very much part of democracy even when they wrong.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 It's true Israel is a democracy, albeit flawed, but let's agree it is. Israeli army however is a totalitarian organization. In fact, as someone who served in the IDF I know that commanders declare it openly. There are things you can and cannot say when you're in uniform. Secondly, army sanctions are not just institutional, which are real, but also social-people will regard you as a traitor. 3.A weapon is a threat and you clearly said "weapon against democracy".

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

"albeit flawed", "Israeli army however is a totalitarian organization"

So? Is not it any society? any army?

"sanctions are not just institutional, which are real, but also social"

To what degree? It is not like in totalitarian countries or in countries ruled by fundamentalist. In fact as NF said Israeli have more open discussion than US

"A weapon is a threat and you clearly said "weapon against democracy""

If you want to be accurate I said "as weapon ".

In no way I

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 My argument wasn't that in Israel the army is more totalitarian than in other countries. My argument was that it IS totalitarian in ways which prevent soldiers from saying certain things for fear of being punished. "Breaking the Silence" allows the soldiers to retain anonymity, thereby granting them immunity from such outcomes.The comparisons you're going into are totally beside the point, since they have no bearing on the credibility of soldiers' testimonies.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd.

Do you see difference between "scientific pulling" of reputable specialized company that take ALL testimony from large pool of people and very limited and selective pull from activist with agenda? I mean 100 interview in one year?

Again. Israeli soldiers DO talk without fear from gov. You maybe right about social aspect but again its not like in gaza where you get killed for speaking out

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 About the issue of democracy, I didn't accuse you of being against free speech so I don't quite get your responses. I was just curious how condemning someone for human rights violations, such as killing, can possibly be construed as a weapon against democracy. True or false, these are just words.On the second point, see my next post.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

"I was just curious how condemning someone for human rights violations, such as killing, can possibly be construed as a weapon against democracy. "

As your idol NF said you use locution as propaganda weapon. You already put "guilty verdict" in question.

It exactly point of dispute Gaza killing or war and it seems to me you are trying to avoid honest dispute on subject by playing word game

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 I think you're a little confused because you just quoted me selectively. My next sentence was : "True of false, these are just words". Notice, I grant that what he says could be entirely false, and even if this were the case you wouldn't have an argument for this being somehow a weapon against democracy.Secondly, these issues have been determined by experts in the field, so I'd suggest some caution when you claim there is a "dispute" about what happened in Gaza.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

"Secondly, these issues have been determined by experts in the field, so I'd suggest some caution when you claim there is a "dispute" about what happened in Gaza."

OK. I agree there is no dispute between specialist as Col. Richard Kemp and non specialists as NF or Goldstone.

And yes I'm grow tried of talking about "a weapon" or "as weapon" and did not read your post carefully.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 By experts I didn't mean ex-military apologists hired by propaganda machines such as UN watch. I meant people who know how to do human rights investigations. If you look at such widely respected sources as HRW, Amnesty and the Goldstone Report you'll get a very similar picture. Even though Goldstone was clearly biased in favor of Israel, a fact well known by those who actually read the report.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 BTS never claimed to have a representative sample of soldiers. In a country where, as polls do show, more than 90% of the jewish population supported Cast Lead, it's hard to think they'd have a sufficiently exhaustive polling list. None of this however has anything to do with the accuracy of what the soldiers said, namely, that there was no significant fighting and that insane amounts of firepower were used, facts even you don't dispute.So polling methods mean nothing here.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

You are dancing around issue.

As I said I dont dispute facts I dispute moral judgment attached to this facts. Locution as NF said.

I dont dispute rights of NF to speak out and as I said dissent is good thing even if it directed AGAINST democracy in defense of despicable terrorists and abuse difference of opinion in dispute. I know it is a bit counterproductive but that's nature of democracy. I'm sorry you dont understand it

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 The BTS testimonies contained no moral judgement. You can decide for youself whether using insane amounts of firepower when there is no significant fighting is good or bad.

Secondly, you attribute to Finkelstein "defense of despicable terrorists" and before you've attributed to him the denial of Israel's right to self defense. But you never provide any quotes to support these accusations, so it's hard to take it seriously. To my knowledge these are fabrications, so prove me wrong.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "The BTS testimonies contained no moral judgement. You can decide for youself whether using insane amounts of firepower"

The 'locution" "insane fire power" already has a "judgment" build in. According your idol NF.

"But you never provide any quotes to support these accusations"

For all that good and green its a given! You dont see it because you are agree with NF assumption that Israel does not have case for self defense and it never act in self defense but pure aggressor.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 "Insane amounts of firepower" doesn't tell you anything about the soldiers' moral approach. They could be in favor of such tactics and they could be opposed to them, the mere expression is merely an indication of magnitude, not of moral character.Secondly, the fact massive fire power was used isn't even in dispute among those who know Gaza's conditions post-Cast Lead.

And still you provide no quotes. Finkelstein never assumed Israel has no right to self-defense, quite the contrary.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "mere expression is merely an indication of magnitude, not of moral character"

I disagree "never assumed Israel has no right to self-defense"

He just deny the fact that Israel ever acted in self defense and practically speaking it is same as denying rights for self defense.

I'm reading this book atm and according him zionist plan war from 19th century and practically speaking initiated all conflicts in region

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Finkelstein said on many occassions Israel, as every state, had a right to self-defense. But in international law to establish your right to USE FORCE in self-defense requires that you demonstrate that all peaceful options have been exhaused. This is a question of historical fact, not a question of preference. According to ZEEV MAOZ who studied all of Israel's wars the only case were it arguably may have not had a peaceful option was 1948, that's it.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

"no significant fighting and that insane amounts of firepower were used"

Again. ON SUBJECT.

From your and NF point of view difference in casualties and fact that hamas did not put fight means no war.

For me it means that hamas use typical shock troops tactics.

For you and NF "insane fire power" means that Israeli fire indiscriminately.

For me it means Israeli manage to avoid major casualties.

You play with words and emotions I have historical examples and cold numbers.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Again you're attributing views to me and to Finkelstein none of us ever voiced. The mere fact of insane firepower wouldn't indicate indsicriminate targeting of civilians hadn't we had other evidence, such as casualty figures, destoryed civilian infrastructure and documented cases of indiscriminate firing. As for Hamas shock troop tactics that managed to kill 5 soldiers, very impressive, total proof of war.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "we had other evidence, such as casualty figures, destoryed civilian infrastructure and documented cases of indiscriminate firing"

Lets talk about casualties. 1400 in 3 weeks. Massacre from your point of view. Lets compare with other massacre for example Damour in Lebanon. 600 in one day just knifes and simple AK47. PLO (0 casualties)took time to rape and torture too. Insane fire power? Indiscriminate fire? Lets take Hamburg WW2. 50k. Entire city gone.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 It's not a massacre BECAUSE it's 1400 in three weeks. Finkelstein argues that it's a massacre because these were 1400 killed when there was hardly any fighting. Does it make you feel better that others have committed massacres in the past?

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "As for Hamas shock troop tactics that managed to kill 5 soldiers, very impressive, total proof of war"

That's because hamas send them to die not to win this engagement. Gazans are just this - sacrificial pawn so you and NF can use them for propaganda war.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Well, if the palestinians need a propaganda asset they don't need me or Finkelstein, they have the IDF and the Israeli government. Hadn't it been for Israeli brutality Palestinians would not get as much sympathy around the world.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

They need you and NF for propaganda precisely because there is no brutality to speak of.

Lets compare this war in cold numbers to any other conflict in area.

Lets compare brutality of Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian to own kind to conduct of Israeli.

Lets compare US/UK/France etc to Israeli. Shell we? I'm not even talking about Russians.

Is there some cases of misconduct and brutality? Sure. But by far Israeli show much more restrain even compare to west

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 So HRW, Amnesty, Goldstone and the soldiers themselves are lying and I'm supposed to believe some guy who keeps falsely attributing views and evading the issue. Ok, excuse me if I choose to listen to those who actually know something about the topic. You can compare Israel to anyone you want, I just don't think it will bring back to life all the people for whose deaths Israel is repsonsible.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "So HRW, Amnesty, Goldstone and the soldiers themselves are lying"

What are you talking about? All of them can be sincere and wrong at same time.

Of course Human Rights and Goldstone up in arms against war, admin detention etc. Its very nice and noble position but totally non realistic. They are free to be righteous hero because they dont have to protect people from suicidal maniacs.

Reality is war was forced upon Israel and it can't be fought in "white gloves"

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Yes, theoretically they could be wrong, as can anyone else. However, you have provided zero evidence that they are wrong. What you did instead was to assume that they are wrong without argument. You've accused Finkelstein of propaganda even though he entirely relies on these sources. And now you've invented another story, you think the Israeli government is protecting people from suicidal maniacs. Is this why Ehud Barak broke that highly effective cease fire in November 2008?

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "However, you have provided zero evidence that they are wrong"

Actually I offer you historical examples with numbers. You call it massacre? You call fire power insane? Lets compare with known massacre and fire power in other wars.

You call upon testimony of soldiers? I give you a testimony of high rank british officer.

As for broken "cease fire". Nobody denies those militant were digging tunnel to Israel and thats break point. remember Gilat? 

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Again, you're misrepresenting what I said. It's not I who said "insane amounts of fire power". The soldiers themselves said so. It's no I who said there was no fighting. The soldiers themselves said so. What about massive destruction of civilian infrastructure and indiscriminate firing?- The human rights record points to it. Historical comparisons don't refute these facts.At best, they show Israel is not the first to go wild in civilian areas, not that it didn't commit these crimes.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "The soldiers themselves said so"

Some soldier said so but there are other testimony.

You are not from israel. You have typical totalitarian mentality. You see this testimony as CONFESSION but in reality it is you can always find difference of opinion in democratic society.

"not the first to go wild in civilian areas"

Wild? If they went wind there would not be gaza or gazans. So US/UK went wild in WW2? Maybe they are war criminals not nazi?

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Not some soldier but many soldiers, one after another. As for other testimonies- you haven't cited any other testimonies. Your whole argument is based on guesses. To further establish it I can also point to the fact that I've lived in Israel for the last 20 years (in the region which was subjected to Kassam rockets). As for the going wild thing, you again managed to demonstrate your ignorance since it was Zipi Livni-rather than me- who said Israel "went wild".

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "Not some soldier but many soldiers"

Dead loop. Again its about 600 interview over 6yr by organization with agenda and as we agreed they are minority.

I did reference testimony of "Goldstone Gaza Report: Col. Richard Kemp"

As for "you said" or "you quote" who cares. You support it. You use it. You own it

Its limited format forum.

As for u live in Israel I'm sorry but I have some doubts. Your mentality is of totalitarian who never experience democracy

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 You haven't cited a single soldier who participated in Cast Lead and said something that differed from what these soldiers said. Secondly, it's true I "use" well documented facts , this is what serious people do in debates (I might add it certainly beats your technique of talking out of your ass). The facts , however, are there whether you choose to see them or not. As for my mentality: when you quit parroting propaganda we can talk about it חתיכת אדיוט.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

I dont initiate exchange of insults out of respect to community and to myself but I dont see a reason not to answer in kind

Hey moron. Hand picked a hundred or so testimonies out of thousands soldiers by activist organization with agenda that is not fact.

Besides as your idol tells... it was not soldiers war. Israel did not put "boots on the ground". On other hand I rely on testimony of high ranking officer with excellent credentials.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 It's a fact that soldiers said there was no fighting (one after another) and it's a fact they used the expression insane amount of fire power to describe what happened in Gaza (one after another). You can't deal with these facts so you make silly ungrounded assumptions about what other soldiers WOULD'VE said. But you can't cite a single soldier from Cast Lead who ACTUALLY said what you'd like to hear. What do you do?-you cite a person who had nothing to do with Cast Lead.Pathetic.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

Are you saying Col Kemp did not witness operation and/or dont have qualification?

I quote specific testimony so you welcome to argue with specific points. You did not. Testimonial of "breaking silence" that I sow are not specific at all.

I dont have to quote anyone other then Kemp because his qualification and fact that he is not personally involve make him the best witness.

You know majority of Israeli support action in gaza and it amount to much more then a few "silence" testimonial

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Kemp did not participate in Cast Lead, he was not on the ground, his word is meaningless ( Moreover, he didn't even dispute what the soldiers said and neither did you). The soldiers that were interviewed by BTS witnessed what went on first hand. The fact most Israelis supported Cast Lead only weakens your point, because the soldiers said what they said despite the overwhelming likelihood they themselves supported the operation.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "his word is meaningless"

LOL

By same token your idol NF has no say because he did not witness anything.

He did not participate in ANY diplomatic or military even on ME. So how can he argue with Shlomo Ben Ame about camp david negotiation?

By your reasoning opposition/dissent is always right because they are minority.

You are just an idiot.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Speaking of idiots. Your moronic mental capacities seem to preclude you from seeing the difference between testimony and scholarly commentary. Good witnesses are people who are present when an event occurs. They may be lying and they may be apologetic, but as witnesses they know certain details others don't. A good Scholar is someone who bases his analysis on the best evidence available: reports, witnesses, news etc and doesn't have to be present in the field. Kemp is neither.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "Kemp is neither"

In your not so humble opinion. From his credential I can tell he is a specialist in this field with huge practical experience. He has much more say then this idiot NF who has not done anything "ground work" He leech from real historians like Beny Morris and inflate noise for his work by crude propaganda and sensationalism.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 It has nothing to do with my opinion you retard. Anyone with half a brain listening to Kemp's "authoritative" testimony will immediately know he's talking out of his ass. Example: his claims about Hamas human shielding. Several human rights investigations examined this charge and found ZERO evidence, despite the fact Palestinians did not hesitate to accuse Hamas of other serious crimes. Although I can understand why a propagandistic ignoramus such as yourself would be on his balls.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd:"his claims about Hamas human shielding. Several human rights investigations examined this charge and found ZERO evidence, "

I had some doubt about you either you just "useful idiot" or islamonazi little goebbels.

But this is too much for "useful idiot". Be you a certifiable cretin you still have to understand that human shield is PRINCIPAL STRATEGY of islamonazi.

There is too much evidence for it.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Again talking out of your ass. Show me one human rights report that supports your claim. "Too much evidence", you're a joke. The only evidence of human shielding in Cast Lead was of IDF soldiers using Palestinians as human shields.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

google "human shields hamas" and here you go.

I'm not going to play your lame game. It is well know, well documented fact and in fact all this hamaz, hezbollah etc they dont hide it. They proud of it.

As for a few cases with Israeli soldier. Its exception not a rule and only moron needs explanation on this subject.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 There is not a single human rights report that supports your claims.Not on google and not on Mars. lol "only moron needs explanation on this subject", wow, that's a great way to document your claim, certainly easier than using actual evidence.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

While Amnesty Int for example "did not find evidence" of hamas use of h-shield but they report of hamas using homes and schools as firing position. They report gazan group at homes to prevent bombing. If thats not human shield then what?

There is a Hamas MP Fathi Hammad, broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV on February 29, 2008 admitting "hs"

Israeli gov provide video from drons as evidence etc. There are clips on y-tube of brainwashing kids to die for case.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Amnesty International knows the law and found no evidence of human shielding on the part of Hamas. Are you claiming to know better than them what constitutes human shielding?

The Hammad video was discussed in the Goldstone report, which concluded this video in itself doesn't constitute evidence of human shielding.

As for the government videos. Yes, they do provide air footage where little shadows are moving and you can't tell what's happening without their subtitles.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "Amnesty International knows the law"

Its not about knowledge of law but the fact finding in terrorist controlled town. Israeli are free to testify and criticize own gov. you try something like this with hamas or PLO on territory those gang control.

There is enough info to see how arabs raised in hate and condition to give life either as suicide bomber or human shield. Test books, tv program for kids etc.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 You say Palestinians are intimidated and can't testify against Hamas. But as I already pointed out, and as was documented in various HR reports, Palestinians interviewed by Human Rights investigators have accused Hamas of very serious violations of human rights among Palestinians. Very gruesome violations. How do you reconcile this fact with your argument?

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "Palestinians interviewed by Human Rights investigators have accused Hamas of very serious violations of human rights among Palestinians. Very gruesome violations."

Like use of human shield?

[Byrnzie400]

@Greywind30

There has been no evidence found of any Palestinians using human shields. Neither the Amnesty report, the Human Rights Watch Report or the Goldstone report found any evidenc of Palestinians using human shields. Israel, on the other hand, has a long history of using human shields and used them during the attack on Gaza in 2009.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 That's the whole point you genius.If you bothered reading you'd know that despite the serious accusations Palestinians have directed at Hamas, human shielding WAS NOT one of them. You still haven't answered how do you reconcile your argument that Palestinians can't speak out against Hamas, with the well documented fact that they actually DID speak out against it?

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

give me an example.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Well, some gruesome examples of Hamas violations of Palestinian human rights were in their targeting of alleged Fatah members. In one case (Goldstone report, p.377)-far from the only one- masked men broke into the house of a Fatah supporter in Gaza City,took him away, tortured him and shot him in the leg. This man was previously detained by the Gaza security services and released on condition he doesn't participate in Fatah events.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd

Let me quote myself:"Israeli are free to testify and criticize own gov. you try something like this with hamas or PLO on territory those gang control."

Sure when you live on hamas control territory you can bich about fatah and other wise and you just tell us what happen if you disagree with hamas on hamas turf.

thx

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Ok, obviously you didn't get the example. The guy on whose testimony Goldstone was basing himself in this instance reported being tortured by Hamas in Gaza, i.e on "hamas turf". How is this "bitching about Fatah"?- The guy has testified to being tortured by Hamas security services, because of his alleged Fatah affiliation.

[Greywind30]

@igalgd "reported being tortured by Hamas in Gaza, i.e on "hamas turf"

LOL

It is you who dont get it.

Would u criticize hamas or join fatah while in gaza?

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 He criticizes Hamas Einstein. What's wrong with you.

[Byrnzie400]

@Greywind30

It's not an exception at all. It's standard Isralei practice you imbecile:

Google 'B'Tselem 20 July 2006: Israeli Soldiers use civilians as Human Shields in Beit Hanun'

& 'Guardian - Palestinian brothers: Israel used us as human shields in Gaza war'

[Greywind30]

@Byrnzie400

"He didn't argue with Shlomo Ben Ami"

He did.

#1 SBA point that Israeli agreed with Clinton parameters and paper they submit was not reservations like Arafat paper.

#2 For all practical reasons Arafat ended negotiations not Israeli.

That's a few major points.

"B'Tselem 20 July 2006"

There is not even accusation of SYSTEMATIC use. Pure single case and based on say so. There is a few cases Israeli soldiers use h-shield but it is not standard practice

[Byrnzie400]

@Greywind30

He didn't argue with Shlomo Ben Ami regarding Camp David. If you watch the Youtube debate then you'll see that they were in agreement on almost every issue.

[igalgd]

@Greywind30 Originally, the IDF spokesman said this was just a weapons cache not a tunnel. Secondly, this excuse was ridiculed in the Israeli press by people like Zvi Barel who accurately stated that if such tunnel existed it could be neutralized on the Israeli side.Further, don't forget the Israeli Foreign Ministry admits Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire.

[Byrnzie400]

@Greywind30

How about you read Finkelstein's book before spouting anymore of your gibberish?

[Greywind30]

@Byrnzie400

I just finish it. Its a total bullshit. Format and structure of book is stupid beyond believe. He does put in references accurately but in key points he just "say so". For example when he talks about "palestinian" peaceful offensive 1975 he does not provide ANY references.

He is not even historian but moralist. He does not discover anything but just twist facts documented by real historians like Beny Morris.

[Byrnzie400]

@Greywind30

Except this isn't true, as there are 40 pages of references at the end of the book.

[seedorf222]

who hero he is to say the trouth to the people they don't like the trouth

they pretend like human rights while they killed and stole people lands

ISRAIL IS TERRARIST AND THIFT LANDS

[the81kid]

good to see him out and about, meeting people!

[LSRochon]

More on Norman Finkelstein and his extensive speaking engagements regarding International Law and Israel/Palestine on my channel

LSRochon?feature=mhw5

[kaptainbastard]

@LSRochon

thank you

[phooey108]

Finkelstein at the UN!

[LSRochon]

@phooey108 ..Hell YA!