en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/1376021 Comments by elisehendrick http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135394380 There's no point to a terrorist attack for which the group involved claims no responsibility. The whole idea is to press certain specific demands, which does not work unless the group responsible lets people know who did it. The reality is that most people who are murdered are murdered by people they know. Any serious murder inquiry begins with a thorough examination of the lives of the people involved in order to determine whether there was anyone amongst their family and acquaintances who might have had a motive and opportunity to kill them. This is particularly true when a murder takes place in a location to which access is heavily restricted. Before one simply assumes that someone with no right of access was able to enter and exit a heavily fortified, fenced-in, armed enclave without being detected or stopped, one starts by looking at the people for whom the issue of securing access doesn't arise - those living in or visiting the place (either the settlement or the home of the victims). No attempt has been made to do any of this. It has merely been assumed that dead settlers equal Palestinian killers (though there has also been a roundup of Thai workers). It is absurd to claim that questioning the immediate assumption that the killer must be Palestinian (even though no suspect has been identified and no group has claimed responsibility) means that one assumes that 'no Palestinian would ever do this'. No one has claimed that, and, to my knowledge, no one has operated on that assumption. On the other hand, there is a widespread, unchallenged assumption that no Jew could possibly have done this, which is the sort of thinking that one has encountered in places such as Kishinev in 1903. As for the rest of Zach's post, it's childish, ad hominem nonsense and discredits itself. Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:04:56 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135394380 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135024266 Here's a random thought. If the 'activist Left' would like to prove themselves worthy of the name, they could point out that no one actually knows who committed the killings and condemn the cynical exploitation of the killings by people who have never shown any compunction when it comes to murder. Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:56:59 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135024266 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135021569 "Terrorism" as it is used in public discourse certainly is not a descriptive term; however, "terrorism" is in fact a legal term with a very clear legal definition. The reason this definition is virtually never relied on or even mentioned in public discourse is clear enough - it would constitute a confession that our political and intellectual class regularly engages in and condones terrorism. Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:34:49 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135021569 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135012486 Certainly (though the same people who think that failure to join child killers in condemning child killing is proof that one supports child killing will have no trouble missing the point. Speaking of which, I have it on good authority that you'll be hearing from Reider himself soon). Tue, 15 Mar 2011 06:22:13 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135012486 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135011551 True enough. Everything I said about the Hebron case holds, at least for the parents. Though it's worth remembering that any serious murder inquiry starts with the people closest to the victims, especially when the alternative is as improbable as a Palestinian making it undetected in and out of a heavily fortified and protected military enclave, and doing so armed with nothing more than a knife despite the likelihood of encountering people with guns. Tue, 15 Mar 2011 06:14:30 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135011551 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135009179 They probably did at some point, certainly, but multilateral treaties (particularly those that, like the Geneva Conventions, are considered to reflect peremptory norms) trump customary law. Tue, 15 Mar 2011 05:56:11 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135009179 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135005484 Excellent piece. However, it's worth noting that the Geneva Conventions provide no support for the idea of "belligerent reprisals" against a civilian population. In fact, they are expressly prohibited in absolute terms. Tue, 15 Mar 2011 05:28:10 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/you-are-a-scoundrel-dimi-reider/#IDComment135005484 http%3a%2f%2fwww.maxajl.com%2f%3fp%3d5049#IDComment134942797 Well, "defeat" certainly doesn't make sense (and while he might put it that way in an off-the-cuff remark, he hasn't described it in those terms in his writings to my knowledge), I can see what he means when he describes it as a "disaster" for the US ruling class, particularly given the assumptions on which the aggression against Iraq was based (little or no resistance, quick installation of a "democracy", i.e., a pliant dictatorship that would ultimately ensure US control over Iraq's oil spigot, etc.). The result has been an unusual level of popular resistance from the very beginning (now renewed in the midst of the wave of popular uprisings in the region) that has forced the US-installed regime there to take positions inconvenient to the US in order to maintain even a veneer of legitimacy, the undermining of the longstanding US policy of isolating the only really independent (of the US) government in the region, Iran (which now has a much greater regional role than had previously been the case). On top of that, the amount of energy now dedicated to perpetual and ever-expanding war against Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. has left the US unable to beat back the wave of Latin American independence. So, while the oil industry certainly is not hurting from the whole thing, I think it can be argued that the net effect of the aggression against Iraq has been to weaken US imperial control in important respects. Of course, it would be absurd to suggest that the ultimate, unexpected (and certainly unintended) adverse net effects on US imperial power is proof that the decision to launch the invasion couldn't have been taken to advance US imperial power in the first place (post hoc != propter hoc), but I still think that the invasion of Iraq will ultimately prove to be the US' Barbarossa moment. Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:05:05 +0000 http%3a%2f%2fwww.maxajl.com%2f%3fp%3d5049#IDComment134942797 http://www.maxajl.com/an-appeal-to-all-foreign-embassy-personnel-and-international-media-present-in-japan-regarding-the-nuclear-disaster/#IDComment134937584 Having spent the past few days watching a livestream of NHK's Japanese-language earthquake coverage, I can confirm this. The overall impression is a combination of press conferences that are so hypertechnical that most people won't get much out of them (the average twitter responses from Japanese viewers in the feed next to the video are things like "Do they think anyone can actually make head or tail of this crap?") and admonitions to maintain calm and avoid believing "e-mails aimed at generating fear and panic". Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:40:50 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/an-appeal-to-all-foreign-embassy-personnel-and-international-media-present-in-japan-regarding-the-nuclear-disaster/#IDComment134937584 http%3a%2f%2fwww.maxajl.com%2f%3fp%3d5049#IDComment134779352 And he forgot the rest. But rest assured, it was scathing and eloquent and occasionally flirted with a resemblance to factual argument before going home to good ole bullshit. Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:24:32 +0000 http%3a%2f%2fwww.maxajl.com%2f%3fp%3d5049#IDComment134779352 http%3a%2f%2fwww.maxajl.com%2f%3fp%3d5049#IDComment134779051 An ancillary issue, but: When did Chomsky claim that the US was 'defeated' in Iraq? I haven't heard him claim that before. The closest thing I can think of is a piece he wrote sometime around 2004-2005 where he pointed to the degree of popular resistance to the occupation (unusual in the annals of military occupations), and remarked that it took actual talent to run a military occupation as incompetently as the US had been doing it. Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:21:43 +0000 http%3a%2f%2fwww.maxajl.com%2f%3fp%3d5049#IDComment134779051 http://www.maxajl.com/talking-to-socialists-about-palestine/#IDComment130477913 Luckily, they don't generally speak in our name in any way that is easily heard. Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:41:41 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/talking-to-socialists-about-palestine/#IDComment130477913 http://www.maxajl.com/shlaim-shills-for-empire/#IDComment120465889 I also think that the phrase "cherry picking" is inappropriate. Boycotts - at least the successful ones, such as the South African boycott - are generally selective. The question is whether a particular type of boycott will tend to get the desired result, no result, or a counterproductive result. For example, the academic/speaker component of the South African boycott made exceptions on a case-by-case basis for speakers who intended to speak out against apartheid whilst in South Africa. A phrase like "cherry picking" implies that there is something wrong with exercising tactical judgment, and runs the risk of confounding tactics with principles. Mon, 10 Jan 2011 05:51:54 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/shlaim-shills-for-empire/#IDComment120465889 http://www.maxajl.com/shlaim-shills-for-empire/#IDComment120410322 Finkelstein didn't cite academic freedom as a justification; he cited it as the way in which the discourse would be distorted. As I recall the remarks, he said: "The problem is that with actions like [shouting down Michael Oren or the academic boycott], they get to change the subject. Instead of talking about human rights and the theft of Palestinian land, we end up in a debate about academic freedom." Sun, 9 Jan 2011 20:54:00 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/shlaim-shills-for-empire/#IDComment120410322 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100763121 It's worth noting that Samel doesn't even attempt to answer my actual argument, namely that, under international law (the source that we go to when distinguishing combatants from noncombatants), armed, paramilitary settlers who go around launching murderous attacks against defenceless occupied civilians with the full knowledge and active complicity of the occupying military, are not civilians, and may indeed be considered de facto irregular forces of the Israeli military. He does not even attempt to defend his contrary assertion in "Are the settlers civilians?" - understandably, why should he defend it now when he declined to support it with argument and evidence then? Instead, he gives us enough red herrings to feed the city of Oslo for months, distorting my legal argument into something it clearly was not (as I specifically said in the first paragraph of the piece) - a moral or tactical (to an extent, they're synonymous) discussion of the killings. I was arguing that - under the assumptions I made in the article - it was lawful resistance to occupation. Lawful doesn't necessarily mean good tactics - it's a separate issue. But it's very important, from our vantage point, to at least acknowledge that those resisting are within their rights when it seems to be the case. Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:35:12 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100763121 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100762347 "Concede" is dishonest. I would never have suggested other than that the "lifestyle settlers" are, at least by and large, noncombatants. The law is clear on that point. "And how did the gunmen know these victims were in the latter category - their location near Hebron?" Or one of the many other possible factors I mentioned in the original post, which he's hoping his readers didn't read. Note that I never said that they DID know, merely that Samel was wrong in asserting, based on no evidence, that they COULDN'T have known. "Your analogy to Gacy and Stroop taking some down time is awful. We know these men to be serial murderers. Did the Palestinian gunmen know that about these victims?" More dishonesty. This was in response to Samel's absurd claim that, if the settlers were armed, it was exclusively "for defensive purposes" because they were not involved in any "offensive operation" at the time. Obviously, Even the worst murderers in the world aren't involved in "offensive operations" all the time - does that make their weapons "defensive"? "You are suggesting it was all right to kill four random settlers because they may have committed terrible crimes warranting such punishment." Again, no. I was arguing, based on available facts and well-settled principles, that, to the extent that these settlers were involved in the paramilitary settler movement, they at least constitute combatants, and could very well be considered irregular forces of the Israeli government. Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:28:31 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100762347 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100761948 He now admits that "the list of crimes committed by armed settlers is long and nauseating", and yet he claimed in the original article that the settlers' weapons were exclusively "for defensive purposes. "The question is whether you think that the 500,000 settlers who populate the OPT illegally are committing a capital crime. I think they are not. " This is dishonest. There is a clear distinction between the "lifestyle" settlers and the settler-pogromshchiks, a distinction I made, stating that the former were clearly civilians, and the latter not so much. "Some of your other complaints are just plain silly. You ask how do we know what the gunmen knew about their victims." Actually, Samel asked this, claiming that all they likely knew was that they were settlers. I just pointed out that there are reasons to believe that they knew more than that. Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:25:20 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100761948 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100761600 Samel's piece claimed to be about whether "the settlers" were civilians. It did not even attempt to provide a serious answer to that question. Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:22:19 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100761600 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100761545 Samel's title still has the fundamental flaw of conflating the paramilitary settlers with the "lifestyle" settlers. As for frivolity and dishonesty, I don't think Samel himself could be outdone (see below). Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:21:43 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100761545 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100761408 Vered: That's because I was tied up working on an impressively dull and monumentally long translation and didn't have time to take care of the backlog of comments until today. It's up nopw. And my name is Hendrick. No S. Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:20:33 +0000 http://www.maxajl.com/are-armed-paramilitary-settlers-civilians/#IDComment100761408