Israel's Mark Regev - The new Iraqi Information Minister

[bloodyminded]

Just in case my last post didn't do enough to debunk your flawed assessment of the situation, here is a official Israeli military web site:

From: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/Aerial_strike_weapon_development_center+_Gaza_28-Dec-2008.htm

The Air Force activity came as a result of the continuation of terror activity by Hamas terror organization from the Gaza Strip, and the duration of rocket launching and targeting Israeli civilians.

See that part in bold? So it looks like rocket attacks were, according to the Israeli military, a reason for military action in Gaza.

Ah...so you take officials' contradictions as evidence of their honesty. Awesome.

[segnosaur]

Just in case my last post didn't do enough to debunk your flawed assessment of the situation, here is a official Israeli military web site:

The Air Force activity came as a result of the continuation of terror activity by Hamas terror organization from the Gaza Strip, and the duration of rocket launching and targeting Israeli civilians.

...So it looks like rocket attacks were, according to the Israeli military, a reason for military action in Gaza.

Ah...so you take officials' contradictions as evidence of their honesty. Awesome.

So, please point to me an official statement from the Israeli government, military, or senior politician in power that said that rocket/mortar attacks had no bearing at all on the decision to go into Gaza.

Oh, by the way, I notice you seem to have ignored some of the questions I asked in post 20. Just to remind you, I had asked:

- How many rocket attacks are necessary before you think military action was justified? You seem to think 15 wasn't enough, so how many is enough?

- If Hamas (you know, the people voted into power by the Palestinians living in Gaza and the group that controls the police their) isn't responsible for stopping rocket attacks launched from Gaza territory, who is?

- How many 'cease fire' agreements contain clauses that allow one of the countries/territories to dig secret tunnels into the other territory and kidnap people?

Also notice you never responded to the fact that I debunked your claims that "Israel ended the ceasefire" when I pointed to multiple web sites showing it was Hamas who stated that the cease fire was over.

[bloodyminded]

So, please point to me an official statement from the Israeli government, military, or senior politician in power that said that rocket/mortar attacks had no bearing at all on the decision to go into Gaza.

On which thread do you believe you're spouting the talking points you've plagiarized from reactionaries? Have you not watched, here, Regev's concession? Why are you asking questions for which the answer is supplied in one of the videos on this very thread?

Oh, by the way, I notice you seem to have ignored some of the questions I asked in post 20. Just to remind you, I had asked:

- How many rocket attacks are necessary before you think military action was justified? You seem to think 15 wasn't enough, so how many is enough?

Fifteen non-lethal rocket attacks, outside of official Palestinian jurisdiction, constitute justification for the murderous war?

And don't you find it odd that, of global opinion generally, only the propagandized, sycophantic (shrinking) minority believe in this justification?

- If Hamas (you know, the people voted into power by the Palestinians living in Gaza and the group that controls the police their) isn't responsible for stopping rocket attacks launched from Gaza territory, who is?

They are responsible...and as no doubt you agree, they are a profoundly irresponsible organization.

That's not open season on innocent Palestinians, whatever you might determine.

- How many 'cease fire' agreements contain clauses that allow one of the countries/territories to dig secret tunnels into the other territory and kidnap people?

I agree wholeheartedly that kidnapping is wrong. You, however, do not, as Israel kidnaps people regularly. (That they don't themselves call it kidnapping is of no moment whatsoever.)

So while I clearly and unambiguously point to Hamas' culpability and guilt on any number of terrible matters, you no doubt consider my views "one-sided"....even though you're referring, with astonishing unawareness, to yourself, and not to me.

Also notice you never responded to the fact that I debunked your claims that "Israel ended the ceasefire" when I pointed to multiple web sites showing it was Hamas who stated that the cease fire was over.

Yes, after Israel broke the ceasefire, no doubt Hamas did point out the objective fact that the ceasefire was over.

Edited June 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[segnosaur]

So, please point to me an official statement from the Israeli government, military, or senior politician in power that said that rocket/mortar attacks had no bearing at all on the decision to go into Gaza.

On which thread do you believe you're spouting the talking points you've plagiarized from reactionaries? Have you not watched, here, Regev's concession? Why are you asking questions for which the answer is supplied in one of the videos on this very thread?

I have watched the videos... at no point did Regev ever say that Rocket/mortar attacks were not at least part of the reason for the invasion.

So, try again...

Please point to any statement from the Israeli government, military, or senior politician that said that the rocket/mortar attacks had no bearing at all on the decision to go into Gaza.

Oh, by the way, I notice you seem to have ignored some of the questions I asked in post 20. Just to remind you, I had asked:

- How many rocket attacks are necessary before you think military action was justified? You seem to think 15 wasn't enough, so how many is enough?

Fifteen non-lethal rocket attacks, outside of official Palestinian jurisdiction, constitute justification for the murderous war?

I notice that once again you have avoided the question. So, let me ask this again...

how many rocket/mortar attacks must Israel be subject to before you feel they are justified in taking actions to defend themselves militarily.

Its a simple question. Give me a number.

And don't you find it odd that, of global opinion generally, only the propagandized, sycophantic (shrinking) minority believe in this justification?

Nope, all it proves is that:

A: There are a significant number of 'useful idiots' in the world

and

B: That the Palestinians have a more effective PR machine

Sadly, the 'majority' is not always right. I can point to case after case where 'the majority' has engaged in beliefs that have shifted over time.

They are responsible...and as no doubt you agree, they are a profoundly irresponsible organization.

So... you agree Hamas should have been stopping the rocket attacks, but shouldn't....

And you think Israel should what, just sit back and let rockets fall on its cities, in its school yards, etc?

That's not open season on innocent Palestinians, whatever you might determine.

Except it wasn't "open season" on innocent Palestinians. Hamas has been very effective in using its own citizens as human shields. Things like that tend to increase the casualty count.

By the way, ever hear of Jenine? If not, perhaps you should read up on it. It provides some very valuable lessons.

I agree wholeheartedly that kidnapping is wrong. You, however, do not, as Israel kidnaps people regularly. (That they don't themselves call it kidnapping is of no moment whatsoever.)

Difference is, the people that Israel took tended to be engaged in terrorist activity (you know, launching rockets, kidnapping, etc.) The Israeli soldier was taken was not engaged in any sort of military action.

So while I clearly and unambiguously point to Hamas' culpability and guilt on any number of terrible matters, you no doubt consider my views "one-sided"....even though you're referring, with astonishing unawareness, to yourself, and not to me.

The reason why I consider your views "one sided" is that while you claim you are pointing to Hamas' culpability you do things like:

- make statements that Israel should just accept rockets/mortars falling on its territory because it was "just 15".

- make statements that it was "open season" on Palestinians", without considering the fact that Hamas was using human shields

Yes, after Israel broke the ceasefire, no doubt Hamas did point out the objective fact that the ceasefire was over.

No, the Palestinians did, by:

A: Launching rockets/mortars into Israeli territory (something that was against the ceasefire, unless you can point to me any section of the piece agreement that allows the Palestinians to do so).

B: Digging secret tunnels under the boarder

C: kidnapping Israelis

Israel should not be blamed for reacting to those activities, when it was the Palestinians who provoked them

[bloodyminded]

I have watched the videos... at no point did Regev ever say that Rocket/mortar attacks were not at least part of the reason for the invasion.

So, try again...

Please point to any statement from the Israeli government, military, or senior politician that said that the rocket/mortar attacks had no bearing at all on the decision to go into Gaza.

I'm responding to people--"useful idiots," as you use in another context--who claim rockets were THE reason.

And when this excuse is defused, they say, "Tunnels! What about the tunnels!"

And if one were to respond to that, they'd say "The Palestinians elected a terrorist organization!"

Now, we know the latter is not to be takern seriously as justification, since Western governments elect what can reasonably be termed "terrorist organziations"--under your standards, mind, not mine--continually.

Anyhow, if I get you correctly, you are saying there were multiple reasons, working in concert, which justify that war.

Now, that at least reaches a level of serious debate: you might wish to educate the propagandists who can't think beyond their own quick scan of official pronouncements, and so make spurious claims. But the trouble with your view is that all your reasons demand absoolute faith in the perfect honesty and excellent intentions of Israeli officials. They said it...so let's believe it. In other words, it's a rebuke against democratic principles themselves.

I notice that once again you have avoided the question. So, let me ask this again...

how many rocket/mortar attacks must Israel be subject to before you feel they are justified in taking actions to defend themselves militarily.

Its a simple question. Give me a number.

In avoiding this nonsensical question, I was generously sparing you embarassment. But you're insisting, so consider:

There is no objective number. You're asking a question that cannot be measured.

Clearly, your answer to the question would be: whatever Israel deems the appropriate number, is the appropriate number. Therefore, it's fifteen.

Such dewy-eyed trust surely makes debating easier, no doubt.

Nope, all it proves is that:

A: There are a significant number of 'useful idiots' in the world

Right...you mean critics of Israel's behaviour. Because this single geopolitical entity is so magical that it is self-evidently above criticism.

The only one in the history of the Earth.

Quite a hypothesis.

[bloodyminded]

and

B: That the Palestinians have a more effective PR machine

Ok, now you're really trying to insist that you don't have even an elementary understanding of what propaganda is, and how it works.

The notion that the Palestinians "have a more effective PR machine" than Israel, and especially of its close Western allies (notably the United States) is literally the most preposterous thing I've heard in quite some time.

Propaganda as we understand it in the contemporary world is a product of the Americans and the British, beginning in earnest around World War 1, and becoming more expansive throughout the 1920's. It was a perfectly conscious, explicitly-stated method of crowd control and the "engineering of consent," in the words of the leading theorist Edward Bernays. He and Walter Lippman used the growing science of psychology to figure out how best to influence the public, since democratic judgement was "not to be relied upon." This gave birth to the PR industry--which, like the related (in fact, integral) advertising industry--was founded quite explicitly on deceit.

It continues today, of course, so institutionalized that most propagandists are unaware of their propagandist status, or only peripherally aware.

Part of the magnificent achievement of Western propaganda is that it can recognize and denounce the propaganda of others (Official Enemies, mostly), while maintaining the jaw-dropping pretence that "we" are too wise and insightful to be taken in by it. Oh, except the "useful idiots," of course, who without exception are critics of the West and its allies. QED, since the West and its allies would not sink to the level of deceit and propaganda.

You mention Palestinian propaganda, but that's a non-starter. Of course it exists: but it takes a crude, unfinessed form, much like Soviet propaganda, which was a joke, or like Saddam Hussein lovingly holding Kuwaiti babies. No one took that seriously, certainly not the Iraqi people.

Our propaganda, however, has a weapon that more stringent societies do not have: we have a relatively free press, and leaders who depend on their electorates. But you see, that's the point of propaganda: to coerce opinion in relatively free societies, since the domestic population can't so arbitrarily be ruled through force.

So we'll say, "our free press reports this, and there's no government restraint...so there must be truth to it."

We've gotten to the point where a centrist, Establishment-friendly, patriotic and Power-supporting organ like the New York Times is perceived as "leftist," even "radical": so when the Times publishes pro-Western propaganda (which it continually does), thoughtless folks can say, "Hey...if the left-wing, America-hating NYTimes says how right we are in this or that situation...then it must be true!"

Since you brought up "useful idiots" and all.

CNN works the same way. Establishment organ, a large corporation, dependent on and sympthetic to the interests of Power and Wealth--and believing, a priori, as undergirding premise, that this entity we call "The West" is ultimately Righteous and Just (though, the critics at the "left" end of the mainstream news might interject, we occasionally "make mistakes." Usually while trying to "do good," of course.)

That's all just taken for granted. If you can't understand the propaganda implicit in such a stance, I don't know quite what to say.

And that's, in brief, how propaganda works.

The Palestinians simply do not have that kind of power or expertise or institutionalization of sophisticated propaganda.

Sadly, the 'majority' is not always right. I can point to case after case where 'the majority' has engaged in beliefs that have shifted over time.

That's obviously true, not even debatable. Equally true, and equally obvious, is that the minority is not always right. So your truism here is worth exactly the same as its equal and opposite assertion. No more.

Except it wasn't "open season" on innocent Palestinians. Hamas has been very effective in using its own citizens as human shields. Things like that tend to increase the casualty count.

To reiterate, as I feel compelled to do every time you one-siders make this point (frightened to look in the mirror, of course): I am not exonerating Hamas. But the civilian casualty count is more due to Israeli brutality than to Hamas brutality.

Also--and this is perhaps the crucial point--we should always be more concerned, more outraged, by the crimes we and our allies commit, than we are of the crimes of enemies.

That's elementary morality. Everybody knows that, though the sycophants will forget it at convenient moments.

Difference is, the people that Israel took tended to be engaged in terrorist activity (you know, launching rockets, kidnapping, etc.)

Your evidence for this is unproven claims blandly asserted by political and military officials. Such claims carry zero objective information. In truth, you have no idea whatsoever who is being held, and why, and for how long, and what their treatment is. None.

But the onus is on the powerful; the onus is on those wielding power, in this case through detention. Trust is flatly stupid, and, like I said, in opposition to democratic principles of justice and accountability.

The Israeli soldier was taken was not engaged in any sort of military action.

I'm not defending kidnapping, segnosaur.

You are.

The reason why I consider your views "one sided" is that while you claim you are pointing to Hamas' culpability you do things like:

- make statements that Israel should just accept rockets/mortars falling on its territory because it was "just 15".

- make statements that it was "open season" on Palestinians", without considering the fact that Hamas was using human shields

You can't complain about me being one-sided because you think me insufficiently balanced...while you remain stubbornly 100% one-sided, without even offering a crumb of criticism about Israel's behaviour. This is the stance of a fanatic, frankly.

Israel should not be blamed for reacting to those activities, when it was the Palestinians who provoked them

Even if I agreed with your narrative (which I don't), and thought a military reaction was justified, it's absurd to conflate a reaction with the reaction. What is actively done matters. Do you have limits on what could be done? Or do you base your support on what is done by virtue of it being done by Israel?

It reminds me of my asking another poster, who supported the use of torture, what exactly are the limits? What torture do you support? how much before you say, "Here...and no more"?

And his answer: whatever IS done...that's the acceptable limit.

I admit I find it difficult at times to debate with people of such absolute servility, such promiscuous obedience-to-Power.

Edited June 24, 2010 by bloodyminded

[segnosaur]

Now, that at least reaches a level of serious debate: you might wish to educate the propagandists who can't think beyond their own quick scan of official pronouncements, and so make spurious claims. But the trouble with your view is that all your reasons demand absoolute faith in the perfect honesty and excellent intentions of Israeli officials.

I do no such thing.

Every government or organzation will, at some point or other, pass on false information deliberately or accidentally. That's why I tend to rely on mainstream news media when I post references.

That said, while I'm sure Israel has said things that aren't true, on average they are more honest than the Palestinian side. I suggest you look up the "Massacre at Jenine" as an example, where Israel was correct about casualty figures while the Palestinians initially gave wildly overstated estimates (more than an order of magnitude wrong).

I notice that once again you have avoided the question. So, let me ask this again...

how many rocket/mortar attacks must Israel be subject to before you feel they are justified in taking actions to defend themselves militarily.

Its a simple question. Give me a number.

In avoiding this nonsensical question, I was generously sparing you embarassment. But you're insisting, so consider:

There is no objective number.

So you say that there is no "objective number", but clearly you state that 15 is "not enough".

Can you figure out why people like you are viewed as being anti-Israeli at best, and downright anti-semitic at worth?

If you have no problem with 15, why not 150? or 1500? And as the last Israeli civilian dies from rocket attacks directed at an orphanage I'm sure you'll smile and say "at least Israel didn't defend itself because that would be wrong".

Nope, all it proves is that:

A: There are a significant number of 'useful idiots' in the world

Right...you mean critics of Israel's behaviour. Because this single geopolitical entity is so magical that it is self-evidently above criticism.

Never said they were "above criticism". That's a big straw man.

I'm quite willing to criticize the Israeli government, military, or individual soldiers as the case may be. But so far all I've seen from people like naomiglover are bizarre rants based on faulty information and youtube videos. To me, that's just not convincing evidence.

I'm sure there have been Israeli solders who have done illegal things during the invasion. (There are literally dozens of outstanding court cases, and at least a couple have already been convicted, rightly so). Of course, that doesn't mean that every allegation against Israel is automatically true.

Consider one of the videos she posted as "evidence" of Regev lying... The one regarding Israel not letting civilians be medically evacuated. Regev openly states "We're not sure what happened". Its a perfectly reasonable stance to take (given the amount of misinformation that happens to occur during conflict). The interviewer on the other hand, keeps demanding an apology. Even by the end of the interview the reporter admits "I don't know what happens but I think Israel should apologize". That's not evidence of Regev being dishonest, its evidence of a reporter who doesn't know what he's doing.

B: That the Palestinians have a more effective PR machine

Ok, now you're really trying to insist that you don't have even an elementary understanding of what propaganda is, and how it works.

...

... worthless junk deleted

...

The Palestinians simply do not have that kind of power or expertise or institutionalization of sophisticated propaganda.

First of all, I find it ironic that you would try to educate me in 'propaganda'. Not only do I understand the concept, but you don't even seem to realize that the initials 'PR' stand for public relations. So, the 'expert' doesn't even know what PR stands for.

Secondly, your suggesting the palestinains don't have that kind of 'power or expertise'. Power does not enter into it... you just need to be convincing. And to suggest they don't have the 'expertise' is ridiculous... there are millions of Palestinians living in the west bank/Gaza.. what makes you think that at least a few of them aren't smart enough to realize "you can get away with more if you play the underdog".

Sadly, the 'majority' is not always right. I can point to case after case where 'the majority' has engaged in beliefs that have shifted over time.

That's obviously true, not even debatable.

Yet you were the one that suggested that "only the minority believe in the justification". If you don't think that the "majority is always right", then why exactly did you make that statement in your earlier post (#29)

Except it wasn't "open season" on innocent Palestinians. Hamas has been very effective in using its own citizens as human shields. Things like that tend to increase the casualty count.

To reiterate, as I feel compelled to do every time you one-siders make this point (frightened to look in the mirror, of course): I am not exonerating Hamas. But the civilian casualty count is more due to Israeli brutality than to Hamas brutality.

So, Israel should just step back and let Palestian terrorists launch rockets against Israeli school children just because Hamas decides to station their rocket launchers near schools.

Got it...

By the way, just what makes you think it really is due to "Israeli Brutality"? Oh, that's right, naomiglover said so... she saw it in a youtube video so it must make it right.

You can't complain about me being one-sided because you think me insufficiently balanced...while you remain stubbornly 100% one-sided, without even offering a crumb of criticism about Israel's behaviour. This is the stance of a fanatic, frankly.

Actually I have criticized Israeli behavior in the past. And I'm sure I will again. Just that the nature of all these anti-Israeli naiomiglover spam-bot threads don't actually give a reasonable chance to actually criticize Israel because they're complete trash that must be debunked.

Tell her to quit being a spam-bot and actually deal with real issues.

Israel should not be blamed for reacting to those activities, when it was the Palestinians who provoked them

Even if I agreed with your narrative (which I don't), and thought a military reaction was justified, it's absurd to conflate a reaction with the reaction. What is actively done matters. Do you have limits on what could be done?

Of course I do.

For example, if they deliberately used phosphorous against civilians (which is illegal) rather than a smoke screen (which is legal) then they should be criticized. If they deliberately targeted schools, then they should be criticized. Problem is, people like naomiglover assume that every such incidence is evidence of Israeli brutality, when many accusations are either downright false, or for which there is a context which is being ignored.

Edited June 30, 2010 by segnosaur

[bloodyminded]

That said, while I'm sure Israel has said things that aren't true, on average they are more honest than the Palestinian side. I suggest you look up the "Massacre at Jenine" as an example, where Israel was correct about casualty figures while the Palestinians initially gave wildly overstated estimates (more than an order of magnitude wrong).

You don't know that they're "more honest on average." That's your unexamined premise.

So you say that there is no "objective number", but clearly you state that 15 is "not enough".

Can you figure out why people like you are viewed as being anti-Israeli at best, and downright anti-semitic at worth?

The only people who view me as anti-semitic are drooling little pantywaists who are hostile to thought. That's it.

If you have no problem with 15, why not 150? or 1500? And as the last Israeli civilian dies from rocket attacks directed at an orphanage I'm sure you'll smile and say "at least Israel didn't defend itself because that would be wrong".

The foolishness of your rhetoric has become downright promiscuous.

I'm sure there have been Israeli solders who have done illegal things during the invasion. (There are literally dozens of outstanding court cases, and at least a couple have already been convicted, rightly so). Of course, that doesn't mean that every allegation against Israel is automatically true.

Certainly not....and that places Israel in exactly the same position as everybody else.

First of all, I find it ironic that you would try to educate me in 'propaganda'. Not only do I understand the concept, but you don't even seem to realize that the initials 'PR' stand for public relations. So, the 'expert' doesn't even know what PR stands for.

I've never claimed to be an expert...only more knowledgeable than you, who doesn't understand even the little I do about the hsitory of contemporary propaganda.

And of course i know that PR stands for Public Relations; PR is propaganda. And while some of it is benign propaganda--the basic publicizing of factual information--some of it is of the deceitful type we are speaking of here. But it's unquestionably propaganda.

Secondly, your suggesting the palestinains don't have that kind of 'power or expertise'. Power does not enter into it... you just need to be convincing. And to suggest they don't have the 'expertise' is ridiculous... there are millions of Palestinians living in the west bank/Gaza.. what makes you think that at least a few of them aren't smart enough to realize "you can get away with more if you play the underdog".

As I already stated, I'm not claiming that Palestinian propaganda (the deceitful mode) doesn't exist. I"m saying that Western propaganda has a far more insidious and influential effect on our lives...and that it, too, is used continually in regards to this very conflict we're discussing.

Yet you were the one that suggested that "only the minority believe in the justification". If you don't think that the "majority is always right", then why exactly did you make that statement in your earlier post (#29)

I was trying only to decode the "everybody knows" and "common sense" themes that pervade all political debates, just so the parameters are understood. For example, during the run-up to the Iraq War seven years ago, the war's supporters were continually decrying the "fringe, left minority" who were opposed to it; but in fact, the left was simply in broad agreement with global opinion generally, at least as far as it could be determined...and the fringe minority was comprised of those in support of the war.

That does not mean, in itself, that the majority was correct; but when the basic outlines, the elementary parameters of the discussion are distorted, then the entire debate will be distorted.

Tell her to quit being a spam-bot and actually deal with real issues.

You might want to cast off your obssession with naomiglover--whom you've mentioned at least four times in this response to me. I'm not responsible for naomiglover; I've never posted a youtube video on any subject of import (well...on any subject at all, actually); and I"m not a spokesperson for some "anti-Israel" movement.

So tell her yourself. Arguments against her are not arguments against me.

While you're at it, you might want to chastise the anti-Arab racists on this board...or, conversely, you might credibly point out to me that their vomit is not your fault.

Edited July 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

Does this man ever say anything truthful?

Are all of your threads about Israel or the Jews, or Jewish influence?

[naomiglover]

Are all of your threads about Israel or the Jews, or Jewish influence?

Why do you need to ask this question when you already know the answer?

[DogOnPorch]

Why do you need to ask this question when you already know the answer?

Evil Jews. Maybe you can come up with a final solution to this nagging problem of yours.

[jbg]

Why do you need to ask this question when you already know the answer?

I thought maybe you'd have a constructive answer.