// you're reading...

Activism

Pnina Sharvit-Baruch’s outrageous participation in Harvard humanitarian law panel

Pnina Sharvit BaruchYesterday, I posted about the talk that Israel’s John Yoo, Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, was outrageously invited to participate in at Harvard’s Humanitarian Law and Policy Forum. One commenter during the seminar aptly described Sharvit-Baruch’s reasoning as the “rhetorical acrobatics to evade  [the application of humanitarian law].” The following is a request for solidarity released by activists concerned about Sharvit-Baruch’s participation in this panel. It is imperative, I think, for human rights and the welfare of humans to be the number one driving force for the application of humanitarian law, rather than the strategic designs of one state or another.

July 9th: Commemorating call for BDS and Harvard’s invitation of an alleged war criminal

This morning, which marks the fifth anniversary of the International Court of Justice ruling on the illegality of the Apartheid Wall’s route [http://stopthewall.org/internationallaw/639.shtml], Harvard’s International Humanitarian Law and Policy Forum hosted a discussion on civilian participation in hostilities. To provide the perspective of someone who has “practical knowledge” on this topic, the organizers invited Col. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, the professed legal architect of the war on Gaza, so controversial that her colleagues in Israel protested her appointment to the Law Faculty at Tel Aviv University [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058847.html].

Appalled by the fact that the IHL Forum would invite an alleged war criminal to discuss a military tactic she justified in Operation Cast Lead, one which essentially legitimated the targeting of civilians in conflict, the National Lawyers Guild along with scholars, lawyers, students, and activists globally, registered for the live online seminar to make sure that the Forum could not conduct its business as usual without dealing with the serious allegations facing their featured guest. Unfortunately, the seminar only offered limited participation and the registrants could only post their questions on a live chat board.

The organizers moderated the Q & A period and never asked Col. Baruch about the war crimes allegations lodged against her. Still, they repeatedly commented about how ‘active’ the chat board was. At the closing of the 1.5 hour seminar, one of the moderators commented that despite all the comments related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this discussion was significant in the field of IHL because it was likely to characterize armed conflicts in the coming years. A frightening thought especially if alleged war criminals are providing guidance for the rest of the world.

As Maryam Monalisa Gharavi, one of the seminar participants explained, “it was totally surreal (and all too real) to sit through a carefully prepared powerpoint presentation with many attendees asking, ‘Yeah, what IS a civilian?’ after thousands died and burned in Gaza, with near-total Israeli and U.S. impunity.”

We are posting an excerpt of the discussion below and in honor of the Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions issued four years ago on this day [http://www.bdsmovement.net/?q=node/52], we encourage you to call and/or write a letter to the organizers protesting their invitation of an alleged war criminal.

Call:
Claude Bruderlein (617-496-8640)
Naz Modirzadeh (617-384-7420)

Write:
Director
Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research
Harvard University
1033 Massachusetts Avenue, 4th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Excerpt from the Chat Board today:

from HPCR Production Assistant to All Participants:
While your participation and engagement in this event is appreciated, we ask that all comments remain professional and respectful. Kindly ensure that all comments adhere to this policy.

from Hillel Stavis to All Participants:
Andrew: Zee Man’s comments would appear to contradict your statement.

from Andrew March to All Participants:
Hillel: HPCR is not typing the comments.

from rex fernandez to All Participants:
Is there a presumption that any non-uniformed un armed person is a civilian?

from Noura Erakat to All Participants:
“practical application of IHL?” Like John Yoo, it wasnt the application of law but rather the rhetorical acrobats to evade it. Shouldnt the moderators of this discussion make that known to the participants?

from Hillel Stavis to All Participants:
The obvious question: Why aren’t there any panelists who represent non-state combatants? Did anyone think to invite them?

from Yaman Salahi to All Participants:
Here is what Haaretz says about Sharvit’s appointment in law academia: “One of the important reasons not to appoint Sharvit-Baruch to the law faculty is her sanctioning, as head of the division, of the killing of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, many of them children, women and elderly people, during the three weeks of the war.”

from Kirstie Campbell to All Participants:
Because they dont know whether or not they are a legitimate target

from Maryam Monalisa Gharavi to All Participants:
Andrew–Legal teams for alleged war criminals _frequently_ try to justify their actions, such as Bybee, Yoo, etc. Their speech rights are by no means limited: they usually get univ. appointments upon ‘retirement’ such as Col. S-B., Alberto Gonzales, Yoo…

from Catherine Namakula to All Participants:
It would be a priviledge to have them on board because it would be a golden opportunity to impact on their odeology

from Christianna Leahy to All Participants:
Or seats on the FEDERAL bench, no less

from Maryam Monalisa Gharavi to All Participants:
It is an act of political surrealism to sit through these carefully prepared power points after thousands died and burned in Gaza, with near total impunity for Israeli gov.

Did you like this? Share it:
Filed Under  , , ,

Discussion

20 Responses to “Pnina Sharvit-Baruch’s outrageous participation in Harvard humanitarian law panel”

  1. What is worth discussing is why you assume that IHL is itself necessarily innocent of the concerns you have about Sharvit-Baruch. In fact, if you were listening carefully to the broadcast you would have caught how many times the representative from the ICRC "completely agreed with Pnina." This problem is bigger than Israeli actions in Gaza. You missed that story.

    Posted by Abu | July 10, 2009, 1:36 pm
  2. By the way, your post yesterday compared inviting her to inviting John Yoo. That is *almost* the right analogy, but unfortunately you didn't pursue the train of thought.

    During the height of the debates over torture in this country, would a group of legal academics assembled to discuss the legality of torture have been right to invite John Yoo? You're damn right they would. He was in a position of *making law* through those vile memos. Sweeping it under the rug and pretending that he was a talk-radio host is an infantile approach. Now, mind you, this doesn't mean that when things change (via elections, etc.) that we can't consider prosecuting him (or disbarring him), but those are all *legal* procedures. How do you think you can win legal procedures except by refining your legal arguments and discrediting the opposition. By all means – bring the John Yoos of the world out into the light with smarter, sharper legal minds and humiliate the man.

    So why was John Yoo *almost* the right analogy to HPCR's decision? Because Yoo never received the credibility in the wider legal community that the arguments of Sharvit-Baruch and the ICRC are enjoying. Like it or not, Sharvit-Baruch is *not* necessarily regarded as a clear-cut war criminal by the IHL mainstream (=ICRC). If we want to play the IHL game we need to know what the arguments are and not pretend that she is some vile aberration who is given a certain credibility by HPCR which she doesn't already enjoy.

    It's worse than you think.

    Posted by Abu | July 10, 2009, 1:48 pm
    • I appreciate your insights, I definitely have a sense that the problem is bigger than her. I'm not competent in IHL to make any sophisticated or worthy analysis, so my outrage about this is not based on legal principles or argument, but on worry that her values–which anybody can call out–are seeping into the mainstream as legitimate. You say that's already the case, to some degree, which is definitely very problematic. It seems to me that these principles are severely undercut if they are no longer applicable in "practical" matters when it is "inconvenient." Nevertheless, while a legal argument on the matter is better left to lawyers and IHL experts, I still think it's necessary for people outside the circle to feel the outrage and to have a role about what's going on. I very much doubt all the people protesting Yoo were lawyers, or should have been lawyers (not that you're saying that–I'm just explaining why I posted these two posts). In both these posts I relied on what other people had to say because I did not feel comfortable inserting my own voice into the legal analysis. I think that's appropriate for this blog post. If you're interested in writing a guest post elaborating on your criticism, which I get a feeling is targeted at IHL's shortcoming as a whole, and only Sharvit-Baruch secondarily (I guess you're saying she's not an exception), feel free to write it up and e-mail it to us as a guest post, I'd be more than happy to post it.

      Posted by yaman | July 10, 2009, 4:56 pm
  3. Salaamat Yaman. Part of what HPCR was trying to do (I think) was to bring attention to this creeping development. It was hard to catch, but I think that the host (Claude Bruderlein) referred to these developments as "the death of IHL." Having her on there along with the ICRC definitely served to expose that possibility which is something to keep in mind when we reasonably get fed up at having those views treated as respectable.

    There is lots of critical work out there on IHL. Would be happy to post some references to it.

    The broader point, though, is that we always need to be careful about when the law is on the side of our moral and political commitments and when it isn't. Sharvit-Baruch (or Bush) could be a "war criminal" in a moral sense. But our sense of what makes a war crime is, unfortunately, not the same as what makes a war crime according to Geneva.

    Posted by Abu | July 10, 2009, 5:02 pm
  4. "There is lots of critical work out there on IHL. Would be happy to post some references to it."

    Please do.

    Posted by yaman | July 10, 2009, 5:13 pm
  5. The first place to begin is with David Kennedy's Of War and Law.

    Posted by Abu | July 10, 2009, 9:01 pm
  6. The opinions I've read here show that minds are decided, never mind the facts. Why was the IDF in Gaza? Does Hamas and the PA advocate the destruction of Israel? Does Hamas and the PA call for death to all Israelis and Jews? Do the 'Palestinians' support those positions?
    How would you define a 'civilian' or non-combatant in those circumstances? Would you have any qualms about killing a 12 year old Israeli that was pointing a gun at you?
    IF you seek peace and someone says, "no, I'm going to kill you", what would you do?
    Why have the governing Palestinians rejected all offers to negotiate? Is it not because the Palestinians have not accepted the existence of Israel? It puzzles me that so many people would rather complain of supposed abuse than to live in prosperous peace with neighbors.

    Posted by cynic8 | July 11, 2009, 1:28 am
    • You are a freak of nature, or , a genetic degenerate. I have not decided which yet. Could simply be that you are a maniouk!

      Posted by Chauncey | July 11, 2009, 4:22 pm
      • 'name calling' does not add to a discussion. Irrespective of whether your slander is accurate, it would be nice to hear your response to the points I've made. Without that response you need to reflect on your thought processes, and whether they are data based. Unless 'belief' is sufficient.

        Posted by cynic8 | July 11, 2009, 6:00 pm
        • The thing is you just spouted a bunch of propaganda without backing it up and just justified the massacre that took place in Gaza based on your vile propaganda. Thus, you are a monster.

          Now lets break down your ridiculous propaganda so you understand why someone would deem you to be a freak of nature.

          "Does Hamas and the PA call for death to all Israelis and Jews?"

          No, this is a categorically false statement. The PA is currently engaged in talks with the Israeli's. While Hamas (the most extreme mainstream Palestinian party) is willing to give up 78% of its historic homeland to make peace with Israel.

          http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html

          Furthermore, Hamas removed its call for the destruction of Israel when it wrote its government manifesto a document they claim replaces their founding charter.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/12/israe

          "killing a 12 year old Israeli that was pointing a gun at you?"

          There have been ZERO confirmed incidents of this ever taking place during Israels assault on the Gaza strip. Most of Israels rampage was done with laser guided 1-2 ton bombs and artillery barrages. In fact there were numerous instances where IDF soldiers shot kids, didn't allow ambulances to pick up the dead, and leveled entire apartment blocks with the people still inside. Not to mention the outright destruction of water treatment facilities, hospitals, schools, police stations, fire stations, power grids, and other essential infrastructure facilities.

          "IF you seek peace and someone says, "no, I'm going to kill you", what would you do?"

          I'm sorry Cynic8 but that's not the situation that Israel is in. Israel is one of the most powerful military machines in the world. They use sophisticated weapons to bomb schools, hospitals, and United Nation aid buildings. The most sophisticated weapons their adversaries have ever produced are home made rockets that often use fertilizer as explosives and are powered by sugar.

          The real question would be, if someone forces you from your home into a refugee camp, and continues to bomb and starve you while in that refugee camp what would you do?

          "Why have the governing Palestinians rejected all offers to negotiate?"

          A statement that is simply not true.

          The real question is why has Israel completely ignored the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 and 2007. The peace plan would give Israel full peace and diplomatic relations with all countries in the Middle East including Iran. Even Hamas agreed to the peace plan. Its also based on the same plan that the international community advocates. The plan basically says:

          2 states living side by side in peace based on the 1967 borders. Israel would get 78% of historic Palestine while, while the Palestinians would get 22% of their historic homeland. Jeruslam would be shared by the two nations, while the refugee situation would be handled by aid given from the various oil rich monarchies in the region.

          What was Israels response? "Fuck you."

          You can read the details of the peace plan here:

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.st

          "Is it not because the Palestinians have not accepted the existence of Israel?"

          Actually, the Palestinians accepted the existence of Israel during the Madrid conference in 1991. In the meantime, Israel has yet to even recognize the Palestinians as a sovereign people until a few months ago.

          Got any more pro genocide, ethnic cleansing propaganda for me to tear apart?

          Posted by Arayus | July 11, 2009, 8:30 pm
        • The thing is you just spouted a bunch of propaganda without backing it up and just justified the massacre that took place in Gaza based on your vile propaganda. Thus, you are a monster.

          Now lets break down your ridiculous propaganda so you understand why someone would deem you to be a freak of nature.

          "Does Hamas and the PA call for death to all Israelis and Jews?"

          No, this is a categorically false statement. The PA is currently engaged in talks with the Israeli's. While Hamas (the most extreme mainstream Palestinian party) is willing to give up 78% of its historic homeland to make peace with Israel.

          http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html

          Furthermore, Hamas removed its call for the destruction of Israel when it wrote its government manifesto a document they claim replaces their founding charter.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/12/israe

          "killing a 12 year old Israeli that was pointing a gun at you?"

          There have been ZERO confirmed incidents of this ever taking place during Israels assault on the Gaza strip. Most of Israels rampage was done with laser guided 1-2 ton bombs and artillery barrages. In fact there were numerous instances where IDF soldiers shot kids, didn't allow ambulances to pick up the dead, and leveled entire apartment blocks with the people still inside. Not to mention the outright destruction of water treatment facilities, hospitals, schools, police stations, fire stations, power grids, and other essential infrastructure facilities.

          "IF you seek peace and someone says, "no, I'm going to kill you", what would you do?"

          I'm sorry Cynic8 but that's not the situation that Israel is in. Israel is one of the most powerful military machines in the world. They use sophisticated weapons to bomb schools, hospitals, and United Nation aid buildings. The most sophisticated weapons their adversaries have ever produced are home made rockets that often use fertilizer as explosives and are powered by sugar.

          The real question would be, if someone forces you from your home into a refugee camp, and continues to bomb and starve you while in that refugee camp what would you do?

          "Why have the governing Palestinians rejected all offers to negotiate?"

          A statement that is simply not true.

          The real question is why has Israel completely ignored the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 and 2007. The peace plan would give Israel full peace and diplomatic relations with all countries in the Middle East including Iran. Even Hamas agreed to the peace plan. Its also based on the same plan that the international community advocates. The plan basically says:

          2 states living side by side in peace based on the 1967 borders. Israel would get 78% of historic Palestine while, while the Palestinians would get 22% of their historic homeland. Jeruslam would be shared by the two nations, while the refugee situation would be handled by aid given from the various oil rich monarchies in the region.

          What was Israels response? "Fuck you."

          You can read the details of the peace plan here:

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.st

          "Is it not because the Palestinians have not accepted the existence of Israel?"

          Actually, the Palestinians accepted the existence of Israel during the Madrid conference in 1991. In the meantime, Israel has yet to even recognize the Palestinians as a sovereign people until a few months ago.

          Got any more pro genocide, ethnic cleansing propaganda for me to tear apart?

          Posted by Arayus | July 11, 2009, 8:30 pm
        • The thing is you just spouted a bunch of propaganda without backing it up and just justified the massacre that took place in Gaza based on your vile propaganda. Thus, you are a monster.

          Now lets break down your ridiculous propaganda so you understand why someone would deem you to be a freak of nature.

          "Does Hamas and the PA call for death to all Israelis and Jews?"

          No, this is a categorically false statement. The PA is currently engaged in talks with the Israeli's. While Hamas (the most extreme mainstream Palestinian party) is willing to give up 78% of its historic homeland to make peace with Israel.

          http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html

          Furthermore, Hamas removed its call for the destruction of Israel when it wrote its government manifesto a document they claim replaces their founding charter.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/12/israe

          "killing a 12 year old Israeli that was pointing a gun at you?"

          There have been ZERO confirmed incidents of this ever taking place during Israels assault on the Gaza strip. Most of Israels rampage was done with laser guided 1-2 ton bombs and artillery barrages. In fact there were numerous instances where IDF soldiers shot kids, didn't allow ambulances to pick up the dead, and leveled entire apartment blocks with the people still inside. Not to mention the outright destruction of water treatment facilities, hospitals, schools, police stations, fire stations, power grids, and other essential infrastructure facilities.

          "IF you seek peace and someone says, "no, I'm going to kill you", what would you do?"

          I'm sorry Cynic8 but that's not the situation that Israel is in. Israel is one of the most powerful military machines in the world. They use sophisticated weapons to bomb schools, hospitals, and United Nation aid buildings. The most sophisticated weapons their adversaries have ever produced are home made rockets that often use fertilizer as explosives and are powered by sugar.

          The real question would be, if someone forces you from your home into a refugee camp, and continues to bomb and starve you while in that refugee camp what would you do?

          "Why have the governing Palestinians rejected all offers to negotiate?"

          A statement that is simply not true.

          The real question is why has Israel completely ignored the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 and 2007. The peace plan would give Israel full peace and diplomatic relations with all countries in the Middle East including Iran. Even Hamas agreed to the peace plan. Its also based on the same plan that the international community advocates. The plan basically says:

          2 states living side by side in peace based on the 1967 borders. Israel would get 78% of historic Palestine while, while the Palestinians would get 22% of their historic homeland. Jeruslam would be shared by the two nations, while the refugee situation would be handled by aid given from the various oil rich monarchies in the region.

          What was Israels response? "Fuck you."

          You can read the details of the peace plan here:

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.st

          "Is it not because the Palestinians have not accepted the existence of Israel?"

          Actually, the Palestinians accepted the existence of Israel during the Madrid conference in 1991. In the meantime, Israel has yet to even recognize the Palestinians as a sovereign people until a few months ago.

          Got any more pro genocide, ethnic cleansing propaganda for me to tear apart?

          Posted by Arayus | July 11, 2009, 8:30 pm
        • The thing is you just spouted a bunch of propaganda without backing it up and just justified the massacre that took place in Gaza based on your vile propaganda. Thus, you are a monster.

          Now lets break down your ridiculous propaganda so you understand why someone would deem you to be a freak of nature.

          "Does Hamas and the PA call for death to all Israelis and Jews?"

          No, this is a categorically false statement. The PA is currently engaged in talks with the Israeli's. While Hamas (the most extreme mainstream Palestinian party) is willing to give up 78% of its historic homeland to make peace with Israel.

          http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html

          Furthermore, Hamas removed its call for the destruction of Israel when it wrote its government manifesto a document they claim replaces their founding charter.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/12/israe

          "killing a 12 year old Israeli that was pointing a gun at you?"

          There have been ZERO confirmed incidents of this ever taking place during Israels assault on the Gaza strip. Most of Israels rampage was done with laser guided 1-2 ton bombs and artillery barrages. In fact there were numerous instances where IDF soldiers shot kids, didn't allow ambulances to pick up the dead, and leveled entire apartment blocks with the people still inside. Not to mention the outright destruction of water treatment facilities, hospitals, schools, police stations, fire stations, power grids, and other essential infrastructure facilities.

          "IF you seek peace and someone says, "no, I'm going to kill you", what would you do?"

          I'm sorry Cynic8 but that's not the situation that Israel is in. Israel is one of the most powerful military machines in the world. They use sophisticated weapons to bomb schools, hospitals, and United Nation aid buildings. The most sophisticated weapons their adversaries have ever produced are home made rockets that often use fertilizer as explosives and are powered by sugar.

          The real question would be, if someone forces you from your home into a refugee camp, and continues to bomb and starve you while in that refugee camp what would you do?

          "Why have the governing Palestinians rejected all offers to negotiate?"

          A statement that is simply not true.

          The real question is why has Israel completely ignored the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 and 2007. The peace plan would give Israel full peace and diplomatic relations with all countries in the Middle East including Iran. Even Hamas agreed to the peace plan. Its also based on the same plan that the international community advocates. The plan basically says:

          2 states living side by side in peace based on the 1967 borders. Israel would get 78% of historic Palestine while, while the Palestinians would get 22% of their historic homeland. Jeruslam would be shared by the two nations, while the refugee situation would be handled by aid given from the various oil rich monarchies in the region.

          What was Israels response? "Fuck you."

          You can read the details of the peace plan here:

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.st

          "Is it not because the Palestinians have not accepted the existence of Israel?"

          Actually, the Palestinians accepted the existence of Israel during the Madrid conference in 1991. In the meantime, Israel has yet to even recognize the Palestinians as a sovereign people until a few months ago.

          Got any more pro genocide, ethnic cleansing propaganda for me to tear apart?

          Posted by Arayus | July 11, 2009, 8:30 pm
        • You just spouted a bunch of propaganda without backing it up and just justified the massacre that took place in Gaza based on your vile propaganda.

          Now lets break down your ridiculous propaganda so you understand why someone would characterize you as a freak of nature.

          "Does Hamas and the PA call for death to all Israelis and Jews?"

          No, this is a false statement. The PA is currently engaged in talks with the Israeli's. While Hamas (the most extreme mainstream Palestinian party) is willing to give up 78% of its historic homeland to make peace with Israel.

          http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html

          Furthermore, Hamas dropped its call for the destruction of Israel, so you can spare us that bullshit as well. The only mainstream party still against peace is Israel.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/12/israe

          "Why have the governing Palestinians rejected all offers to negotiate?"

          Another untrue statement.

          In reality it is the Israeli's that have rejected peace at every turn. Before coming into any negotiation with the Palestinians they bring up a list of demands that all but nullify any peace talks. Furthermore, its the Israelis that rejected the Arab Peace Proposals of 2002 and 2007.

          These proposals stated what the international community have said should be the way to resolve the conflict. The proposal said negotiations would be BASED on TWO states living side by side peacefully. 78% of historic Palestine would go to Israel, while the Palestinians would have to be content with 22% of their historic homeland and forever relinquish their inalienable rights to the rest of their homeland (this was accepted by everyone including Hamas). A shared Jerusalem or division of the city. And finally, a "JUST" solution to the Palestinian refugee crisis. The refugee problem created by Israel when it initiated its ethnic cleansing in 1948, 1967, and as it continues today would be rectified with the oil money of the Persian Gulf states.

          Israels response? "Well think about." This is despite the fact that the Palestinians printed full page ads in Israeli newspapers to get the message out to the Israeli people. The Israeli government continues to operate as if the peace proposal never happened.

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.st

          "Is it not because the Palestinians have not accepted the existence of Israel?"

          Actually, the Palestinians accepted the existence of Israel during the Oslo conference in 1993. In the meantime, Israel has yet to even recognize the Palestinians as a sovereign people until a few months ago, and even then it was not a full acknowledgment. Remember Israeli Prime Minster Golda Meirs Statement, "There is no such thing as a Palestinian."

          Posted by Arayus | July 11, 2009, 10:43 pm
  7. One can always make a case with selective quotes.
    Hamas wants a truce, NOT PEACE! Israel has demands, as does Hamas as does the PA as does the Arab League. To quote you, Each is saying F U! The principle of non-recognition of Israel dates back to 1948, and has not changed. The Palestinians and the Arab League want an Israel that can be swamped in a few days, so want the pre'67 borders. Having a PEACE Partner abutting Israel is not the same as a population that teaches Jews are to be killed and that they do not belong there, despite continuous residence for centuries. Jews have been on the land long before Muhammad was born.

    Posted by cynic8 | July 13, 2009, 1:10 am
    • This is bullshit. Israel doesn't want peace or Palestinian independence. Have you heard what Netanyahu has been saying? He wants Palestinians to agree to segregation but not independence. That's not a formula for peace. That's just wanting the Palestinians to stop being uppity about the fact that they are controlled by a racist government.

      Posted by yaman | July 13, 2009, 1:27 am
  8. "Jews have been on the land long before Muhammad was born."

    And so, too, have the indigenous Palestinians (who, by the way, are not all Muslim). There is a history that many are forgetting or just may not be aware. The Orthodox Jews who call themselves the Neturei Karta (who reside in Jeruselem, Canada, U.S. and elsewhere) remind us that all faiths lived in harmony in this region, respecting each other for hundreds of years, until the dubious creation of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 (20 years after the creation of the Zionist movement). Benjamin Freedman (1890-1984) offered strong debate on this Declaration, which may prove insightful, if not interesting, to folks on this post. Peace.

    Posted by Alum4Truth | July 27, 2009, 7:16 am
  9. I’m undoubtedly not too acquainted with this matter but I do wish to check-out blogs for layout suggestions and exciting subjects. You actually described a topic that I generally don’t care very much about and designed it awfully fascinating. This can be a great blog that I’ll take note of. I currently bookmarked it for long term reference. Thank you

    Posted by online Architect | November 11, 2010, 12:03 pm
  10. 'Alleged' is an important word. Were the British, the Americans, and their allies war criminals for bombing cities that manufactured war goods and also had a significant unarmed population? And if those killed were eager to or complicit in the bombing of the British or French or Belgian or Italian or Roma or homosexuals or… , were they appropriate targets? Is it 'understandable' or 'right' for one grop to kill unarmed people, but not' understandable for the reverse?
    How does one categorize killing of unarmed whose existence is denied, but NOT justify the reciprocal?
    These issues of law seem to have immediate answers. Does anyone care to answer?

    Posted by jack chach | November 11, 2010, 12:10 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] professor of Applied Racism, or as they call it in Israel, “demographics,” and there is Pnina Sharvit Baruch, who teaches the Law of the Jungle at Tel Aviv school of Law. Both enjoy the warm embrace of their [...]

Post a comment

Connect With Us Ya Hmeer!

resume resume

Recent Posts

So, Who’s the Threat to America Again?
August 20, 2012
By Guest
Where Do We Keep Islamophobia?
August 15, 2012
By Shubnum
Lobbying Versus Advocacy
August 1, 2012
By Mehrunisa
On the destruction of Speaker’s Corner
July 17, 2012
By Abubakr
Stateless & Speechless, A Palestinian Regains Speech
July 12, 2012
By Hanitizer
White, Black American groups ‘swap’ summer interns
July 10, 2012
By Guest
The Costs of Stripping
June 25, 2012
By Mehrunisa
Be The Fundamental Pizza of a Man
June 25, 2012
By Guest
In US, They Want Fun, Fun Fun
June 23, 2012
By Sana
I Ain’t Afraid of No Regime
June 15, 2012
By Husam
ADC: Arab American Professionals’ Gateway to DC
June 12, 2012
By Hanitizer
Influence And Freedom
May 23, 2012
By Guest
Will Sacha Baron Cohen Bring His Muslim Bashing To An End?
May 22, 2012
By Hanitizer
On Chafed Oddballs, Siberian Socialites and Missed Opportunities
May 5, 2012
By Guest
A Single Roll of the Dice
April 23, 2012
By Guest