Prosor the Tosser gets you Pissed

Talking of creating new words, the Israel-Palestine conflict has helped Septicisle come up with a new one; prosor n. To present an issue as fantastically simple when it is anything but. Also to put all the onus on the other side when in a dispute. Ron Prosor n. prop. rhyming slang. “Have you seen the article by the Israeli ambassador in the Guardian? What a Ron Prosor.”

St Andrews had the delight that is Ron Prosor come to give a speech a while back. The paranoia about security was good fun (perhaps that’ll die down after the Conservatives repeal universial jurisdiction?) meaning a constant change in venue and people being throw out for looking, well, a bit shifty and brown. But one thing that would have improved his visit ten-fold, would have been the introduction of my new Israel-Palestine drinking game. Because, judging by his article in the Guardian, it would have been a quality mash up. So let’s play it in retrospect. The numbers in brackets denote which rule the comment has broken e.g. [2, 4] is the first number of fingers, and the number of bullet points down. So [2, 4] would be “Clash of Civilizations”

Groucho Marx famously quipped: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them … well, I have others.” The International Quartet (the US, the UN, Russia and the EU) has long applied three principles Hamas must adopt to take part in negotiations. It must renounce violence, recognise Israel and abide by previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. At no point has Hamas satisfied these conditions – or indicated any intention to do so.

Because Israel has renounced violence? Because Israel recognises a Palestinian state? Aye, take a shot people [1, 8]

This week marks the fifth anniversary of Israel’s disengagement from Gaza. We withdrew every Israeli soldier and citizen, gambling on the formula of land for peace. Instead of peace and progress we received missiles and misery. Hamas made Gaza a terrorist enclave, launching thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians.

Harvard’s Sara Roy, the leading scholar on the subject has this to say; “with the disengagement from Gaza, the Sharon government was clearly trying to preclude any return to political negotiations… while preserving and deepening it’s hold on Palestine.”

Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s advisor also stated that the aim of the disengagement was to relieve international pressure and prevent an independent Palestinian state.

So, take another shot people. [1, 6]

In 2006 it kidnapped Gilad Shalit, holding him in isolation for four years without a single visit from the Red Cross.

Prosor neglects to tell his audience that Israel happens to hold thousands of Palestinians in isolation without trial, many of which are children. Bottoms up again [1, 8]

In a bloody coup in 2007 Hamas attacked its own people, chasing Fatah out of Gaza and hurling its Palestinian brothers from the rooftops.

Again, Prosor gives us the revisionist history. He doesn’t tell us the US and Israel supported a coup against Hamas, who acted in reaction to this. I’m also loving his concern for the Palestinians being hurled off rooftops. Apparently this is the epitome of evil, but bombing these same people is fine. Take another shot [1, 6]

Simultaneously it relentlessly attacked Israelis and, with Iranian support, stockpiled weapons that today can hit Tel Aviv.

Ignoring double standards is starting to get very repetitive. That Israel relentlessly attacked Palestinians and, with American support, stockpiled weapons that today can (and do) hit Gaza City, is of no consequence. Take another shot. [1, 8]

After years of missiles, the bombardment became unbearable. We targeted the terrorist infrastructure through Operation Cast Lead.

Targeted terrorist infrastructure? O rly? Down another one [1, 6]

Israel has tried to stop the flood of weapons through a naval blockade

Yet another lie. Dove Weisglass, the Sharon advisor previously mentioned, said “‘The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,’ … The hunger pangs are supposed to encourage the Palestinians to force Hamas to change its attitude towards Israel or force Hamas out of government.” Anyone getting drunk yet? Well, take another anyway [1, 6]

When Hamas supporters attempt to break the blockade, as occurred with the Turkish IHH flotilla, Israel’s defensive measures must be understood in context.

Well, yes, the context of starving the Palestinians into submission.

Some in the west fondly refer to Hamas as the elected representatives of the Palestinians.

Notice the “fondly” as if Prosor is saying many in the West support Hamas. Who this Hamas supporting “some” are isn’t mentioned. He goes on with a bizarre strawman

While Hamas won the Palestinian council elections in 2006, it was not a mandate to violently overthrow the Palestinian Authority. Nor does it justify terror against Israel. Hamas’s concept of democracy fits that of all democratically elected dictatorships – “one man, one vote … once”

So apparently some in the West believe winning an election justifies a terror campaign. Umm

Gaza was a golden opportunity tragically missed. Instead of building a Mediterranean Dubai, Hamas diverted every resource to enslaving its people while attacking ours.

Yes, after 40 years of what Sara Roy calls an Israeli policy of “dedevelopment”, Gaza could have become a desert paradise. It’s hard to know if anyone actually believes this nonsense. Perhaps a Disneyworld in Rafah refugee camp is also in order? Another shot [1, 6]

President Abbas has declined talks, preferring to campaign against Israel internationally

I love this term “campaign… internationally.” It recognizes global sympathy for the Palestinian’s plight but turns it into an insult. Glorious!

After plenty of shite, Prosor comes up with this absolute beauty

If in Gilo no sniper fire means no wall, so in Gaza no missiles would mean no blockade. It is that simple.

The sheer idiocy here is breathtaking. An absolutely outrageous lie, one that any remotely clued up person could see through. But this guy is the Israeli ambassador baby, and utter shit like this is the norm. Of all the lies he shits out of his lying mouth, this takes the biscuit. Drink to your hearts content people, because frankly this is too depressing to read sober.

Defending Israeli war crimes; the drinking game

Since the massacre of Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s little bitches have had their work cut out justifying every white phosphorous attack, every “systematic” destruction of civilian targets, every abuse, every murder, every crime. In a way I pity them. Previously they could trot out the old excuses, as the world reviled at the suicide bombings on Israel. But after the 2008-2009 massacre everything changed. In the words of Gideon Levy;

“The world acts differently toward us, turns a blind eye to Dimona and is silent about the occupation, and now it no longer wants to keep silent about Gaza. Why? Because this time we went too far.”

After the initial reports during the invasion, the world was taken back, but Israel’s defenders carried on, against all odds. Like the defenders of the Alamo, they took it upon themselves to defeat the hoards of anti-Semitic evidence produced. The IDF fucked up a school? Hamas were using it to fire rockets. The IDF fucked up a hospital? Hamas were using it to fire rockets. The IDF fuck up children? Hamas were using them as human shields. How do you know all this? Oh we don’t, but our blind prejudice tells us those towel heads are monsters and those lovely Western people are all kind hearted. But then the reports came out. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, the Goldstone Misson. All respected organizations and individuals, all carrying a consistent message; Israel’s assault on Gaza caused untold death and destruction. As the facts of the invasion became clear, and the pro-Israeli accounts were shown to be bollocks (see This Time We Went Too Far, Norman Finkelstein [New York, 2010] for a total demolition of the Cordesman report) Israel’s defenders had to come up with new excuses to satisfy their bloodlust.

So as the inane arguments arose, I’ve decided to give some sort of meaning to them. They’re useless in debate, but I figured if I make a drinking game out of it, their time and effort wouldn’t have been in vain. So here it is; fill your house with cheap, weak alcohol (you’re going to do a lot of drinking), load up a speech defending Israel (or, for the more adventurous, sneak into a debate with a hipflask of an alcohol of your choosing, and do it there*) and get ready for a hangover

1 Finger

  • Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East
  • The Old Testament says Palestine is ours
  • The IDF is “the most moral army in the world”
  • The world is “demonizing” Israel
  • Why does everyone criticize Israel when other bad shit is happening?
  • Blatant factual lie i.e. Hamas broke the truce
  • Totally dodges the question i.e. so why does Israel systemically torture prisoners? “Israel complies with the rule of law etc” n.b. in dodging the question the statesman may commit another drinking hazard i.e. Israel is a democracy that doesn’t torture. In this case do two fingers.
  • Totally ignores Israeli double standards e.g. Hamas uses human shields, but doesn’t mention Israel does it too

2 Fingers

  • X is true because IDF spokesman Y said so
  • Jewish critic of Israel is a “self hating Jew”
  • It’s the Palestinian’s fault we’re oppressing them
  • Clash of Civilizations

3 Fingers

  • Compares Hamas to Nazis, but then gets angry when someone makes the same comparison to Israel, as it’s in bad taste.

Down Pint

  • Look, who gives a fuck about those sand-niggers?
  • I enjoy beating one off to the dead children, ok?

Drink every alcoholic substance within a square mile

  • Mossad take out person asking difficult question
  • Speaker actually gives a compelling argument.

Note – Obviously these don’t have to be word for word, just the general concept is needed to drink. If in doubt; drink.

* I take no responsibility for anyone getting caught. In fact, I should say don’t do this, being the responsible adult that I am. But what I am saying is you should definitely do this.

Don’t let Iran get the bomb, only give it to decent regimes, like Apartheid South Africa

What with all the evidence Iran is likely to obtain a nuclear weapon very soon (err?) Israel is making sure the country whose leader threatened to wipe Israel off the map (if you say so) doesn’t get that far. So Israel’s far right tosspot of a Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently stated:

“The greatest danger mankind faces is a radical regime, without limits to its cruelty, obtaining nuclear capabilities”

Quite right. Nuclear weapons should be reserved only for those states with moderate aims and a superb human rights record. States like America and Israel.

So with such rhetoric condemning the potential of radical and brutal regime achieving nuclear armament, it will come as no surprise to cynics around the world that Israel tried to sell nuclear weapons to Apartheid South Africa.

Such a revelation would be an embarrassment to the state of Israel regardless of the context, but with the current climate the timing of this finding has a sweet sense of irony.

You see, Israel aren’t all too happy with a certain judge Goldstone and his report (pdf) because, horror of horrors, it attributes blame towards Israel for the “22 days of dead and destruction” in Gaza (Amnesty International). Naturally Israel and her defenders weren’t going to let this stand. After all, you have a greatly respected Jewish, pro-Israeli judge criticising the actions of Israel. The result of this has been defenders of Israel have thrown everything they possibly can at Goldstone’s methods and character, some of it valid criticism, some of it total shite.

But the most recent attack has been Goldstone’s record in Apartheid South Africa. Now his actions in South Africa at the time were unjustified, yes, and criticism is valid here, although it conveniently ignores the role he played in bringing apart a peaceful end to Apartheid. The origin of this story came from the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth with an article entitled “Judge Goldstone’s dark past”. Sasha Polakow-Suransky who came across the documents about the attempted sale of nuclear weapons in research for his forthcoming book The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa mentions a humorous irony of Yediot Ahronoth’s revelation:

“In October 1985, as it happens, the editor of Yediot Ahronoth’s weekend magazine, Aharon Shamir, came to South Africa to meet with a mid-level Foreign Ministry functionary. When the bureaucrat complained that South Africa was being denounced everywhere as undemocratic but could not risk giving blacks the vote, Shamir advised: “Give the blacks the vote very slowly. See how it works. Bit by bit. If you see that your bit by bit approach is not working, change it. But make the world believe you are sincere. You have to be hypocritical to survive.”

Woops. Still, at least people actually involved in these relations are criticising Goldstone because of this

“Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, who denounced Goldstone as “a man of double standards,” because he “sentenced black people to death” appears to have some double standards of his own. Rivlin was no doubt fully informed of Israel’s military alliance with South Africa during the 1980s, given that he served on the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the 12th Knesset from 1988-1992–a position that gave him nearly unfettered access to sensitive military documents and high-level discussions of Israel’s defense doctrine. These were the peak years of arms sales to South Africa, exceeding $1.5 billion in 1988 and approximately $800 million in 1989.”

Oh.

Still, I’m sure the pro-Israel lobby will come across a new and perhaps more effective method of attacking judge Goldstone. A fiver says someone claims he walks around naked except for novelty socks.

Was she paid for this shit?

The terrible earthquake in Haiti (for which donations can be made here) has left thousands dead, homeless and distraught. But while the news is filled with images of the people affected, the media has gone into overdrive, each using the disaster to prove their beliefs. The Guardian and other left leaning media have been filled with commentaries criticising the economic problems that left so many Haitians living in shacks which contributed to the disaster. Anti-imperialist blogs such as Lenin’s Tomb have criticised the apparent American intervention in the country, where opportunity beckons. But the strangest commentary is this blotched job by Stephanie Gutmann. Not content with the Telegraph’s incredulity that anyone could every question America’s motives which are clearly so altruistic, she, somehow, uses this as a passionate defence of Israel and criticism of Palestinian rights campaigners.

It starts of in cheery fashion, insinuating anti-Semitism is at work in criticism of Israel: “Clever people the Jews… oops, I mean the Israelis.” Wow, the old anti-Semitic card, never heard that one before.

Then a devastating attack on critics of Israel’s breach of international law: “but the Israelis, operating with their usual disregard to the niceties of law”. The comparison between giving aid to Haitians and the flagrant abuse of international law in oppressing the Palestinians is just so logical! Obviously such minor abuses of international law don’t really mean much when you take into account the 220 people sent to help.

But not to worry, we have some more accusations of anti-semitism “However, that has not stopped Jewish…er…Zionist propagandists”. Phew, I was lacking my fix of an accusation of racism, there hasn’t been one for, well, 4 paragraphs.

After proving the assault on Gaza wasn’t disproportionate in any way, she adds: “The word “disproportionate” in this case refers to the fact that this country of 7.5 million has sent 220 people, compared to say, China, which as of last week had sent 60.” They sent more people than the Chinese government? Wow, sending more people than a dictatorship is a really flattering comparison. But why China? I notice Robert Mugabe didn’t send any people at all, perhaps she could show Israel’s altruism by mentioning that? I mean, if you’re going to compare yourself to a dictatorship to prove a point, you might as well choose a really shit one?

But now the crux of the argument: “Great,” said someone identifying himself as ‘Smart Alex’, “I just hope the IDF soldiers don’t harvest any of the dead Haitians’ organs without the permission of their families. “I know, I know,” he wrote, “that was a cheap shot. But I believe well-deserved for a country that tries to use its U.S.-funded humanitarian efforts as propaganda to paper over its disastrous and vile treatment of the Palestinians.” A clever fellow and brave too! It takes guts to make such a deduction and publish it from behind the cover of a moniker like ‘Smart Alex’. Naturally this ‘Smart Alex’ speaks for every Palestinian supporter. Such intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein are just small fry compared to ‘Smart Alex’.

But while this article is nothing better than the tripe Richard Littlejohn comes up with, what makes it even funnier, is that this whole article was written in response to ‘Smart Alex’. Gutmann asserts the left are making these accusations, but provides no examples whatsoever. The logical conclusion is that such sentiments don’t exist, at least outside the minds of idiots who are rightly ignored. But she isn’t even demolishing a strawman. Instead, she went on the message boards, found an idiot and decided to write an article rebutting him. This is a “quality” paper, with one of their top journalists, who is paid to write an article rebutting a random dick on the internet.

So next week I might go on the BBC message boards, find a random fud complaining about the number of foreigners in this country, and write an article rebutting it, getting me a job as a top columnist. Easy.

Sadly Gutmann didn’t write an editorial piece extoling the virtues of the Palestinians when they gave aid to Haiti. It’s almost like she has an agenda.