• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« The branches in this Forrest only grow on one side | Main | Off Topic - Amprsnd Music Video »

July 29, 2008


the pil

Mike you mention that 'A striking feature of their analysis is the permanence of Israel’s presence in the territories. They do not believe that left to its own devices Israel is willing or able to dismantle even structures that have been found illegal under Israeli law.' This sentence just highlights the problem with this so called Human Rights Delegation that they do not understand the situation in the area adequately enough to make any moral judgement. They ignore the fact that in 2006 Israel made the painful decision to remove the settlements in Gaza. The actions of Israel proves that Israel is capable of making difficult decisions that remove outposts that until that point seemed permanent.

the pil

Mike, it would be interesting if you could write about the views of the delegates from your personal experience. 702 today devoted an entire segment of the Rhedi Dureko show to the human rights delegation. Forrest one of the participants of the show admitted that suicide bombings have caused distrust in Israel and made peace less likely but yet still argues that they must oppose Israel's actions in the west bank. It makes no sense, he admits that suicide bombings have been an obstacle to peace yet it is the actions of the IDF, that he opposes, that prevents suicide bombings.


For $%^& sake can no one grasp the fact that the Arabs launched a jihad against Israel in 2000, they have refused to lay down arms oir recognize Israel and insist on bloody jihad unitl Israel is destroyed.
How in hell can Israel fighting a defensive war be expected to ensure that there is no Palestinian suffering or incovenience?
When you start a war you can't expect the other side to give your comfort the priority.
No other country has ever behaved as ethically towards the civilian population of an enemy nation in wartime as Israel has. In a fight for her survival against a ruthless enemy that targets her women and children, and aims at the destruction of every Jew inside her borders, Israel always does all in her power to avoid harming Arab civilians.

Compare this to the Allied bombing of Dresden during the Second World War, or the horrific atomic destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You have to be pretty stupid or a cynical lair not to see this.
The members of the so called "human rights delegation" lie with every breath.


the pil,

Has Drew Forrest ever taken part in a radio discussion about human rights abuses in other countries? If, as a journalist, he is particularly concerned about human rights, then why is he only concerned about them re the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

One has to conclude that Forrest has another agenda. Perhaps he can o explain the reasons for this apparent bias in a cogent Mail and Guardian editorial? I look forward to reading it.

I have no problem with South African journalists investigating Israeli human rights abuses but i think that it stinks if they are unwilling to widen their investigation to include other countries.The latter should, of course, include Arab countries.


Well put Gary.

Mike, I think it is unfair to compare illegal settlement activity with political corruption. The former is an ideological phenomenon, people settling a land that, until a few years ago they were told is theirs to settle, the latter is greed. The only thing they have in common is that they are both illegal.

soccer dad

I'm skeptical of the the court's decision. While I didn't look this one over, I had, in the past, read about another decision. The court in that caes was too easily persuaded by the non-governmental bodies - often made up of former security professionls - that advocate for the Palestinians at the expense of the testimony of the current security professionals.

Joel Pollak

Forrest was the editor on duty while Howard Barrell was on vacation in 2002 when the M&G ran the disgraceful headline "Israeli forces take over Wits". It was one of the worst distortions in the history of South African coverage of the issue, with the accompanying article relying almost entirely on accounts by MRN/PSC activists. These accounts different entirely from the news stories by journalists on the scene earlier in the week. Forrest's agenda here is not a secret, and like many of the other members of the delegation his opinions were formed well in advance.


Soccer dad, you right. An organization called the Council for Peace and Security had a big hand in advocating for a change in the fence route. But from what I read in Haaretz it looks like the new Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi has on this occasion backed their position.


This kind of propaganda is going to be quite rough to fight. These guys deliberately de-contextualise everything they say, dont make use of proper facts, see everything in binary, are historically illiterate and make use of some pretty emotive analogies for a group alledging to promote rational debate. The incorporation of anti-Zionist rhetoric is also worrying given this group supposedly recognises Israels right to exist. Whats even more disturbing is how they have turned a group of otherwise unobjectable people into a raging horde of left wing Jihadists. I hate to use the K-word but I think that this level of double standard is beginning to look like that applied only by a certain Mr Kasrils.



It's possible that Gen. Ashkenazi has backed their position on occasion. I don't know. Like I said I hadn't really followed this specific case.

But back in 2004 or so there was a suit about a section of the fence yet to be built near Jerusalem. The court held with the petitioners even though it was pretty clear that the new path would not protect the road. I suspect I could find the relevant articles (I might have blogged it; IMRA might have details) if I had the time.


I repeat Israel is fighting a war of survival.
The courts should not even be involved.
During WW2 did the Allies seek a court interdict for every action against the Nazis?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this Blog

Contact Us

  • Email_1

Events & Lectures

  • Advertise your event or lecture here

News Feed

Comments Disclaimer

  • Comments on this site are the views and opinions of the persons who write the comments and do not reflect the views of the authors of this blog. Comments are often left unmoderated. Should you feel that you have been personally slandered in the comments, please let us know and we will remove the offensive comment.