This is a cross post by Gilead Ini from CAMERA
Victoria Brittain’s Dec. 9 column in the Guardian has all the elements that typify the newspaper’s simplistic, distorted accounts of the Arab-Israeli conflict. There are the innocent Palestinian victims and aggressive Israeli culprits; the falsehoods; the failure to consider any Palestinian responsibility for their state of affairs; and the brazen omission of information essential for understanding the situation.
The particulars of Brittain’s article, entitled “Who will save Gaza’s children?,” are especially dramatic. Gazan babies are being poisoned, and the antidote is as simple as one Israeli phone call, which, for no apparent reason, Israel refuses to make. In the columnist’s own words:
Among all the complex and long-term solutions being sought in Copenhagen for averting environmental catastrophe across the world, there is one place where the catastrophe has already happened, but could be immediately ameliorated with one simple political act.
In Gaza there is now no uncontaminated water; of the 40,000 or so newborn babies, at least half are at immediate risk of nitrate poisoning – incidence of “blue baby syndrome”, methaemoglobinaemia, is exceptionally high; an unprecedented number of people have been exposed to nitrate poisoning over 10 years; in some places the nitrate content in water is 300 times World Health Organisation standards; the agricultural economy is dying from the contamination and salinated water; the underground aquifer is stressed to the point of collapse; and sewage and waste water flows into public spaces and the aquifer.
The blockade of Gaza has gone on for nearly four years, and the vital water and sanitation infrastructure went past creaking to virtual collapse during the three-week assault on the territory almost a year ago.
What would it take to start the two UN sewerage repair projects approved by Israel; a UN water and sanitation project, not yet approved; and two more UN internal sewage networks, not yet approved? Right now just one corner of the blockade could be lifted for these building materials and equipment to enter Gaza, to let water works begin and to give infant lives a chance. Just one telephone call from the Israeli defence ministry could do it – an early Christmas present to the UN staff on the ground who have been ready to act for months and have grown desperate on this front, as on so many others.
The most disturbing message of the column is 1) the assertion that there is a high incidence of methemoglobinemia or “blue baby syndrome” in the Gaza Strip, 2) the implication that this is a result of “the blockade of Gaza,” and 3) the central premise that Israel is responsible for this public heath disaster because it refuses to make “just one telephone call” to allow building materials and equipment into Gaza, and thus”immediately ameliorate” the catastrophe.
If the first point is true, the latter two can only be described as an attempt by Brittain to sharply mislead readers.
| “Methemoglobinemia” is a blood condition characterized by unusually high blood levels of Methemoglobin. One environmental cause of methemoglobinemia is excessive exposure to nitrates, for example, as a result of drinking water with high levels of nitrates. |
No Full-Blown Cases
When discussing methemoglobinemia in the Gaza Strip, it is first important to note that, according to an October 2009 BBC report, “the World Health Organization has not discovered any recent, full-blown cases in Gaza.” Tellingly, Brittain doesn’t share this essential point with her audience.
Nor does she let on that Marianne Stuart of the British Geological Survey believes the reported levels of nitrate in Gaza’s groundwater are “worrying but not exceptional.”
Still, even without “full-blown” methemoglobinemia, there is reason for concern about the prevalence of milder cases of the disorder in the Hamas-run territory. Studies have found higher-than-normal levels of methemoglobin in the blood of Gaza children. And while mild cases of methemoglobinemia are not fatal, they can lead to skin discoloration around the hands, feet and mouth, as well as diarrhea, vomiting, or lethargy. (See, e.g., here, here and here.)
In other words, even if methemoglobinemia in Gaza isn’t a “catastrophe,” it is a problem that deserves honest examination. But Brittain does a disservice by letting her fervent anti-Israel ideology trump fair-minded concern for public health. (Brittain’s ideology involves tireless calls for a boycott of Israel, which she labels an apartheid state, while devoting sympathetic words to Hamas, Hezbollah and other unsavory characters.)
In her zeal to blame Israel, the truth is thoroughly abused. The problem goes beyond outright falsehoods — such as her credulous relaying of UNRWA director John Ging’s bogus claim that “we have 80 percent unemployment” in Gaza, or her assertion that there is “no uncontaminated water” in Gaza. (In fact, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics’ most recent figures, unemployment in Gaza is about half that number — 42.3 percent.
And according to a UN report cited in her column, which she presumably read, there is indeed good quality water in the Strip. An analysis of tankered water from Rafah “indicated good quality water that met WHO guidelines for drinking water.” The report further points out that “distribution tanks like the one the sample came from were observed all over the Gaza Strip.”)
Such notable misstatements of fact are problematic, but even worse in this piece is the Brittain’s broader obfuscation of the problem, driven by grave errors of omission.
The Farmers’ Role
The main environmental cause of methemoglobinemia in Gaza is high levels of nitrates in the groundwater. And the main cause of nitrates in Gaza’s groundwater, it turns out, is well beyond what could be accomplished by any Israeli phone call. The main contributors to the pollution are Palestinian farmers.
Dr. Karsten Osenbrück, a researcher for Germany’s Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research who studied Gaza’s groundwater, explained that while wastewater from human sewage plays a role, an analysis of nitrogen isotopes revealed “the nitrate in the Gaza groundwater comes primarily from manure used as fertilizer.”
Dr. Awni Al Absi, a researcher at Gaza’s Al Aqsa Univeristy who studied methemoglobin levels in the territory, argues that Gaza farmers “usually apply an excess of manure to the crop to ensure that [there is] enough nitrogen available for growing,” a harmful practice exacerbated by “over-irrigation of [the] agriculture area.” Gaza’s “over-use of organic manure” has likewise been noted in the Western press.
Remarkably, the role of Palestinian agricultural practices is ignored by Brittain, even though, insomuch as there is any “simple” solution to Gaza’s complex environmental problems, that solution might be for Palestinian farmers to cut back on the excess manure.
Other Factors
Similarly, Brittain says nothing about other causes of environmental degradation affecting Gaza’s water. While she notes that Gaza’s “underground aquifer is stressed to the point of collapse,” she neglects to explain why, instead lumping the problem together with methemoglobinemia as another issue supposedly in Israel’s control.
According to researchers in Gaza, though, one of the most common causes of groundwater pollution in the Gaza Strip is “over-pumping from wells for domestic and agricultural use leading to diminishing groundwater levels and hence seawater intrusion….”
This over-pumping is intimately tied to the hundreds or even thousands of illegal wells drilled by Gaza Palestinians after Israel’s withdrawal from the territory. Add to this “several years of drought, ” and the result, according to the UN Environmental Programme, is that “at least three times more water is extracted [from Gaza’s aquifer] than is replenished each year.”
Palestinian Water Authority ecologist Nahed Abu Dayyia has highlighted another phenomenon related to nitrate concentrations in Gaza’s groundwater. “The quantity of fresh water available has been severely reduced because new tarmac roads are preventing rainwater from filtering through sand to replenish groundwater levels,” the UN-affiliated IRIN news service paraphrased him as saying. This water, if allowed to run its natural course, would have diluted the pollutants, including nitrates, in Gaza’s aquifer.
In other words, as with a cutback in the amount of manure used to fertilize Gaza’s agricultural fields, Gaza’s water quality would benefit from increased Palestinian control over illegal wells and better land management to maximize recharge of the aquifer.
Prevention
As long as high levels of nitrates in Gaza’s water continue to be an issue, there is another straightforward solution to the methemoglobinemia problem, also beyond the control of Israel, that is highlighted in the aforementioned report by Al Absi of Al Aqsa University. The “recommendations” section of the report notes:
Breast feeding is considered the best solution to avoid infant methemoglobinemia, and for those women who are not breast feeders, the use of bottled water in infant formula preparation offers the safest solution.
Other research validates this conclusion. (See, e.g. here.)
Wastewater
Brittain, however, ignores any Palestinian responsibility for contributing to and protecting against the methemoglobinemia problem. To promote her preferred narrative of Israeli culpability and Palestinian helplessness, she omits entirely from her column the role of manure and over-pumping in causing, and of breast-feeding and cautious water intake in staving off, the methemoglobinemia problem.
The journalist instead focuses mainly on wastewater. In this way, she can apportion blame — all of the blame — on Israel by suggesting that its restrictions on imports into Gaza are responsible for the poor state of its wastewater infrastructure and, by extension, the methemoglobinemia.
But even if one goes along with this selective focus on wastewater — undoubtably a (secondary) source of nitrate contamination in Gaza’s groundwater — Brittain’s story of Israeli responsibility for the crisis doesn’t hold up.
The consistent closure of Gaza’s border crossings began in June 2007, when Hamas took full control of the Gaza Strip by routing Fatah in a bout of internecine fighting. (See details here.) But studies have found an incidence of methemoglobinemia matching the levels described by Brittain, and high levels of nitrates, long before the closure. (See, e.g., this study of data from 2002, this one of data from 1998, and this one of data from 2001-2007)
Likewise, Gaza’s wastewater infrastructure was in disrepair long before Israel’s lockdown of its Gaza border (and long after Palestinians gained full control over the infrastructure in 1994). According to the UN report mentioned above, it has been a major environmental problem for decades. The challenge was made worse the fighting in Gaza, but even before Operation Cast Lead, the environment in the Strip was degraded “due to underinvestment in environmental systems, lack of progress on priority environmental projects and the collapse of governance mechanisms.” Other sources reveal the problem was exacerbated by the theft of sand from sensitive sewage installations by Palestinians who then sold the sand to local companies.
According to a UN official quoted by the BBC, it was clear even before Hamas’s 2005 electoral victory that sewage treatment plants were likely to fail, and that improvements were stymied by Gaza’s precarious security situation:
Fadel Kawash, head of the Palestinian Water Authority, told AP several sewage projects, including one in the village, had been halted after international funding dried up in the wake of the election victory of Hamas in January last year.
“We had a project to treat sewage in north Gaza, it was worked on for two years,” he said.
“We built a pressure pipeline and pumping station but it was stopped after… troubles began.”
Hamas also blamed the flood on the withdrawal of foreign aid.
But Stuart Shepherd, the UN’s humanitarian aid officer in Gaza, said the Umm al-Naser plant had not been affected by the aid boycott, noting there had long been warnings about the plant.
A UN report in 2004 had warned that the sewage facility was at its maximum capacity, and flooding was inevitable unless a new waste treatment plant was constructed.
Mr Shepherd said foreign investment had been secured to build the treatment plant, but construction had not gone ahead because of security risks in the area.
So while Hamas and the head of the Palestinian Water Authority blamed the international community for withholding funding, and a UN official suggested that the problem preceded the boycott, and improvements were held back due to the security situation, neither Kawash nor Shepherd told the BBC reporter that Israel is responsible.
Perhaps this is because, contrary to Brittain’s innuendo, Israel has taken some steps meant to help Gaza overcome its water issues, and building material has entered the territory.
Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said of a sewage project in Beit Lahiya that “Israel approved drilling to conduct treated wastewater to the aquifer, and the required equipment was brought in to construct the facility, including cement, iron and aluminum.”
To be sure, Israeli and Egyptian restrictions on what enters the Gaza Strip have an effect on the territory. Cement and metal, which could be used for improvements to Gaza’s wastewater infrastructure, are especially sensitive, as they are likely to be diverted by Hamas to military uses. Yigal Palmor, spokesman for Israel’s foreign ministry, recently explained that “Hamas has used cement for fortifications and bunkers,” and that “[i]n the past, a lot of cement has been diverted from civilian use to purely military use as instructed by Hamas.”
Any fair-minded journalist discussing the issue would take this into account, along with the fact that metal in Gaza has been used to make Qassam rockets that kill and terrorize Israeli civilians, before claiming, as did Brittain, that a decision to allow cement and steel into Gaza is a “simple political act.”
Cement Still Reaches Gaza
Brittain is also predictably silent about the estimated 600 tons of concrete that is smuggled into Gaza. As Hamas controls not only the territory, but also the tunnels through which the concrete is smuggled, they could surely requisition this cement and direct it to be used for improvements to the wastewater infrastructure. Or better yet, they could purchase that cement with money that until now has gone to replenishing and improving their supply of rockets which have been fired at civilian targets in Israel. Considering that the most basic of the rockets can cost $400 or much more, it could have been helpful for Brittain to call on Hamas to take the simple political decision to apply that money to improving Gaza’s environment and health situation.
Water Rejection
Brittain’s column also conveniently omits another remarkable and relevant point related to Gaza’s water crisis. A recent Israeli offer to supply water to Gaza was rebuffed by Palestinian authorities. Uri Schor, a spokesperson for the Israeli Water Commission, told IRIN that Israel “offered 20 million cubic metres a year of water from our Ashkelon desalination plant” to be transferred to Gaza.” An official from the Palestinian Water Authority acknowledged the offer was rejected, citing the cost of the water and displeasure with the fact that the water was desalinized.
If Brittain truly took seriously the UN report she cites in her article, and if her overriding concern were the health of Palestinian babies, one would have expected her to urge that the Palestinians accept the Israeli water, just as forcefully as she upbraided Israel for not transferring concrete and metal to Gaza. After all, that report points to desalinization as a potential solution to the water crisis. And unlike concrete and metal, the transfer of desalinized water would not put at risk the lives of Israelis.





47 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 15, 2009 at 10:23 pm
AKUS
Absolutely brilliant demolition of her article.
Once again we see that the moment someone knowledgeable begins examining the lies published in yet another in the endless round of Israel-bashing articles they fall over like a chain of dominoes as the true facts come to light.
CP Scott would have praised this article, presenting the facts, and been disgusted by Brittain’s slanted, biased, ignorant rant published by his old paper.
One of the particulalrly interesting facts presented here was:
So the Gazans, who, we are told at least once a week on the CIF site, have inadequate water, somehow are managing to “over-irrigate” their crops.
(Israel just gave them permission to export some 35 million roses, carnations, and chrysanthemums from now through May 2010– for the first time since Hamas took over in 2007 – I wonder if these were over-irrigated and over-manured to get them in to the best possible condition for export).
The Guardian has no shame.
December 16, 2009 at 12:57 am
Margie
The Guardian can learn a lot from Camera on how to investigate and report on a problem. Their underlying theme that everything that goes wrong in the Middle East must somehow be laid at Israel’s door is becoming obvious and tiresome and we need a dose of reality, honest research and good reporting to remind people of how tiny a country Israel is and how small its physical input actually is.
Jonathan Hoffman the other day reminded us that other Arab countries have similar rates of blue baby syndrome. Ini’s discussion allows us to see how cultural behaviour is to blame and not the Guardian’s universal scapegoat – Israal.
December 16, 2009 at 2:44 am
MindTheCrap
Brittain’s hypocrisy is undeniable. Last year she published an article called for a boycott of the Israel Medical Association because of an incident involving Palestinian doctors. But where is she when articles like this are printed?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/doctors-who-braved-bombs-in-sri-lanka-imprisoned-1698160.html
No call for a boycott of the SriLanka Medical Association? Guess why not.
December 16, 2009 at 4:57 am
Gerald
Is this the same Victoria Brittain who is listed as a ‘Patron’ of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign on their website?
December 16, 2009 at 7:53 am
pretzelberg
I stopped reading pretty early on, i.e. after
“Among all the complex and long-term solutions being sought in Copenhagen for averting environmental catastrophe across the world, there is one place where the catastrophe has already happened, but could be immediately ameliorated with one simple political act.”
There are, of course, countless other places affected by serious environmental damage.
December 16, 2009 at 8:02 am
richard
Pretzelberg, aren’t you the one that said that there has never in the history of the world been a Jewish state before Israel?
As regarding the article, I think it has got to be the single most significant piece of investigate journalism I have seen in a long time.
The effort to examine every aspect of what would seem to be a benign article is a milestone. Its a long read, no doubt. But in it we can see how everyday journalists with little to no ethics spin a simple tale by googling a few “facts,” then using what information they find to build a flimsy case against Israel.
I strongly recommend that everyone in this forum post a link on twitter, facebook and any other forums, and call to people interested in how the shallow media uses unethical journalism in their attempt to paint Israel as the source of all evil in the middle east.
This single piece on a subject so off the main stream on the middle east conflict exposes the Guardian and modern journalism for what it really is, a platform to push a political agenda.
Great job Gilead, thanks for cross-posting Hawkeye.
December 16, 2009 at 8:36 am
AKUS
Brittain also blamed Israel for the flooding of Gaza after heavy rain, totally unaware that this happens in Tel Aviv and other coastal cities in Israel practically every year.
Bu why should she let the facts get in the way of a diatribe?
I challenge the Guardian to print Gilead Ini’s article.
December 16, 2009 at 8:59 am
John
Great research. This is what ‘investigative’ reporting should be – ‘just the facts, ma’am’.
Brittain is “former associate foreign editor of the Guardian” – presumably the rest of the stuff she produced for the Guardian over the years while she was on their payroll and travelling the world to add fuel to whichever fire she was ‘reporting’ about was equally driven by marxist ideology and facts did not come into it. Everything she has ever written about anything is suspect.
December 16, 2009 at 11:34 am
Irish
Hawkeye
Thanks – this is very interesting.
Whilst accepting (I/m sure we all do ) that war and continuing conflicts exacerbate infrastructure problems I thought that Brittain’s piece was ill focused and lacking in substance .
Detailed investigation into this problem was done in Syria in 2002 INWEH backed by United Nations University.
—————–
Regional Groundwater Remediation (Blue-Baby Syndrome)
A pilot project on nitrate contamination of groundwater, began in 2002 in Syria, is now nearing completion. It has confirmed the seriousness of nitrate pollution as a source of illness in infants. Most small villages in Syria and elsewhere lack adequate wastewater disposal systems, relying on individual household cesspits. This contributes to contamination of groundwater, which is often used, without treatment, for drinking. Extensive use of manure as fertilizer aggravates the problem as runoff seeps into aquifers. A major contaminant in such situations is nitrate, which poses health risks, particularly for infants three months old and younger, as it leads to a diminished capacity of the blood to transport and transfer oxygen. Infants consequently suffer an ailment commonly called “Blue Baby Syndrome”.
—————————————–
Results from this research have led to the foll, advice
Th ensure that all cess pits are lined
The planting of nitrate containing plants around cess pits.
Buffer zones around wells – to stop cross contamination
THe control of the use of animal manure on crops.
Simple measures
There are currently investigations into the renovation of gravity fed underground conduits from aquifers – in Syria and elsewhere.
The coastal aquifer in Gaza also suffers from the ingress of salt water as the ground water levels fall.
In other words this is an problem across the ME as aridity increases – happening in many places. Dimishing water replenishment from rain, reduced ground drainage along with increasing populations and demand is placing heavy strains on groundwater supplies. Too many wells in one area can disrupt the horizontal flow of water into aquifers – as can trap wells designed to do just this.
This is a shared cross border threat – desalinating will provide more fresh water but does. of course, have its own downside in terms of side products.
To put it into context – the seriousness of it – in parts of S England water tables have dropped – resulting in the house foundations moving and walls cracking. Increase in building , road networks are causing flash floods as ground drainage is blocked,
Shared problems need shared solutions – not sniping across the net.
Leni
December 16, 2009 at 11:49 am
Sarah
thanks for this article, unlike leni i don’t believe refuting outright lies is sniping.
there are problems we all face such as water shortage, then there’s the problem some of us face such as anti-jewish, anti-israel incitement.
thank you gilead ini and cifwatch.
December 16, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Irish
Hi Sarah
Sorry I didn’t make it clearer – it was Britain I was accusing of sniping – not the responders. Brittain’s article was illinformed and partial.
Leni
December 16, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Yohoho
Irish/Leni, Brittain’s article was worse than ill-informed (which merely implies ignorance on her part) it was vituperative and, being published where it was, calculated to stoke anti-Israel fires.
pretzel, there are indeed other places affected by severe environmental damage, but never are they given more than a cursory mention on CiF (if, that is they are mentioned at all) and never are they used, as I said to Leni/Irish, to feed into people’s hatred of the countries concerned.
Richard, al-Grauniad/CiF lost touch with whatever meagre sense of ethics it had the day it began publishing ill-researched rubbish, calculated to appeal to haters’ emotions rather than to encourage them to think.
Although by and large I concur with Finley Peter Dunne that
“The main business of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
I doubt that Mr Dunne had in mind the deliberate distortion of truth and misrepresentation of facts which is the stable of CiF and al-Grauniad in order to keep its chosen afflicted ones stuck in their affliction rather than comforted by being encouraged to do something constructive about it. I would imagine that he was rather more honest and ethical and concerned with the presentation of facts rather than opinions masquerading as facts.
December 16, 2009 at 1:56 pm
sababa
This is really an absolutely impressive piece of research; interesting Leni that there was already a study on this in Syria.
But what Camera here exposes is really how the demonization of Israel works, and of course when, as in this case, there is a focus on children as the victims, it’s very easy to appeal to emotions, not least because even a sceptical reader would probably assume that the journalists wouldn’t go so low to use children as little more than a propaganda tool.
December 16, 2009 at 2:18 pm
TomWonacott
I guess what this shows is how a political activist simplifies a complex topic to produce a narrative that supports her political beliefs. She would probably have never written the article if blaming the Israelis was not an intricate part of the paper. I’m speculating, but it seems to me that, ultimately, accusing the Israelis was more important to Brittain the the Palestinian babies and the nitrate problem.
Really a nice job by camera of researching some of the sources of the Palestinian water and waste problems and producing a much different story.
December 16, 2009 at 2:19 pm
RedSeaPedestrian
“Pretzelberg, aren’t you the one that said that there has never in the history of the world been a Jewish state before Israel?”
Richard. You should probably pick your battles more carefully. Pretzelberg is one of the best defenders that Israel has on cif. Because he attacks the anti semites and the “Palestinians do not have a national identity” crowd with equal vigour, he cannot be dismissed as a “Zionist neo-con”. If there were more Pretzelbergs involved in I/P debate, the discussion would be much more civil; not to mention productive.
December 16, 2009 at 2:50 pm
richard
RedSeaPedestrian said “Richard. You should probably pick your battles more carefully. Pretzelberg is one of the best defenders that Israel has on cif. ”
One, I was asking a simple question RedSeaPedestrian. Two, much like CIF, that’s a matter of opinion. And three, I would hope that Pretzelberg could answer for himself. That is, unless he is.
Have I seen you on this board before?
I have a feeling there’s more behind Pretzelberg that meets the eye, he seems awful cozy with the CIF moderator. Furthermore, if he is capable of saying, with a straight face that before Israel there was never a Jewish state then obviously he’s got some agenda and I’d suggest he read a bit of Josephus.
Pretty much anybody in this debate is in it because they feel passionately about one side or the other. And I can guarantee anybody that participates does it for their own interests. So what are pretzelbergs?
December 16, 2009 at 3:35 pm
richard
Another quick comment, the claim that “Pretzelberg is one of the best defenders that Israel has on cif,” surely does fit with his casual dismissal of one of the most well argued analyses to date. His unwillingness to read the entire article on the basis that “There are, of course, countless other places affected by serious environmental damage.” can be seen as yet another indicator showing us where his real interests lie.
December 16, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Israelinurse
Terrific piece, Gilead.
Gerald – indeed: one and the same V. Brittian.
December 16, 2009 at 5:36 pm
pretzelberg
@ richard
As I have sadly had to stress to other posters here and on CiF: I am not your enemy.
Now I’m confused. You consider Victoria Brittain’s article “one of the most well argued analyses to date”?
My unwillingness to continue reading said article “can be seen as yet another indicator showing us where” my … well, what interests, exactly, lie?
December 16, 2009 at 6:42 pm
pretzelberg
richard
Clearly by that statement you do. But you’re not speaking for/about me or indeed many other people, chum(p).
December 17, 2009 at 12:01 am
Lon Bannon
Victoria Brittain has zero background in medicine, nursing or environmental studies but she claims to be an expert on water, an expert on medicine, and expert on health care, and an expert on agriculture. I would like to see her SAT results so we can decided if she is such a genious after all.
December 17, 2009 at 12:43 am
armaros
Victoria Brittain is George Galloway with bigger breasts
December 17, 2009 at 12:59 am
JerusalemMite
Lon Bannon
Victoria Brittain has zero background in medicine, nursing or environmental studies but she claims to be an expert on water, an expert on medicine, and expert on health care, and an expert on agriculture. I would like to see her SAT results so we can decided if she is such a genious after all.
Yes.
But she is an expert in collecting and publishing anything that can possibly be used to delegitimise and denigrate the Israeli state.
Not any different from the rest of The Guardian cabal.
December 17, 2009 at 1:24 am
richard
pretzelberg
First, your comment, “Now I’m confused. You consider Victoria Brittain’s article “one of the most well argued analyses to date”?
No, I’m talking about Gilead’s article. The one that’s on this board. I suggest in the future when you make a comment on an article about another article, make it clear which one you are talking about.
Then to my comment “And I can guarantee anybody that participates does it for their own interests. Clearly by that statement you do. But you’re not speaking for/about me or indeed many other people, chum(p).”
Of course I do, just like I write my blog and comment in CIF. My interest is in exposing CIF’s unethical journalism and poor journalistic practices that are used to try and deligitimize Israel and legitimze anti-Jewish sentiment under the cover of anti-Israel sentiment.
I never claim to speak for anyone but myself, though as I said, everyone that participates in these forums does so for their own reasons. And when you say that there has never been a Jewish state in history until Israel I have to wonder what your interest is.
So Pretzelberg, do you really believe there was never a Jewish state in the history of mankind before Israel? You seem to be avoiding the question.
Thanks for the clarification chum(p).
December 17, 2009 at 3:05 am
peterthehungarian
JerusaleMite
But she is an expert in collecting and publishing anything that can possibly be used to delegitimise and denigrate the Israeli state.
And she must be a failed expert in money laundering for the Libyan secret service too.
December 17, 2009 at 6:41 am
pretzelberg
@ richard
“No, I’m talking about Gilead’s article. ”
Well, I quoted from the Brittain article and was referring to the latter as well.
“I suggest in the future when you make a comment on an article about another article, make it clear which one you are talking about.”
This is just arrogant nonsense.
Perhaps there was scope for confusion – but may I suggest you in future hold your horses and do not go barking and salivating up the wrong tree?
Anyway: now that you have the full picture, do you not feel silly re. your references to my “casual dismissal of one of the most well argued analyses to date”, my “unwillingness to read the entire article” and “yet another indicator showing us where [my] real interests lie”?
December 17, 2009 at 6:55 am
richard
pretzelberg asked “Anyway: now that you have the full picture, do you not feel silly re. your references to my “casual dismissal of one of the most well argued analyses to date”, my “unwillingness to read the entire article” and “yet another indicator showing us where [my] real interests lie”?”
Indeed I do, that was my mistake. However I’m still waiting for you to clarify your remark about a Jewish state having never existed before Israel. You made it to me under one of my never ending aliases on CIF (as a result of Guardian censorship).
Please clarify.
December 17, 2009 at 9:29 am
pretzelberg
@ richard
“However I’m still waiting for you to clarify your remark about a Jewish state having never existed before Israel.”
You can wait all you like, mate. I owe no explanations (and frankly you’d in any case have to provide a link to remind me exactly what was said) to someone who a) dismisses my opinions from the outset and b) alleges I have some sinister ulterior motives.
December 17, 2009 at 10:08 am
richard
pretzelberg, you’re in a forum in which Israel, its existence is a central subject. I really don’t understand what the problem is.
I don’t have a link to the specific quote. I had said that there was never in the history of the world a Palestinian state, then referred readers to Wikipedia that discusses the subject where they have Palestine as a geographical area, and a link to the subject of a Palestinian state, in which it says “This article is about the political entity proclaimed in 1988.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
During this conversation, you expressly stated that there had never been a Jewish state either until the establishment of Israel. I shall continue to look for the quote.
Though in any case, its a very simple, straight forward question. Do you claim there was never a Jewish state until Israel was established, yes or no. You can bring this whole debate to an end by answering this one question.
You may feel you owe me no explanations, but I think your answer is very important in this forum, and for people that stand support you.
And while you’re at it, you can also tell us about this gem:
pretzelberg
30 Nov 2009, 2:53PM
@ Mods.
I questioned GoldenTriangle’s opening post – but there was IMO nowt in it that justified deletion.
Please, please can you fix it for us to have the post reinstated, because it was certainly relevant to the debate and not offensive in any way.
Have some inside connection with the moderators?
December 17, 2009 at 10:26 am
richard
Another interesting development. I’ve tried to go back to review the comments for a number of ME threads, and the comments are gone.
Such as a thread from Carlo Strenger, another form Isi Leibler.
Looks like the Guardian is trying to wipe away all traces of crimes being conducted in their forum.
December 17, 2009 at 12:14 pm
pretzelberg
@ richard
You suggest I am “cozy with” and have an “inside connection with the moderators?”
This is getting more bizarre with each of your posts.
But of course I am/do. That’s why they deleted my short and sharp riposte to Seamus Milne earlier today.
p.s. The “Please, please can you fix it for us” was a harmless reference to Jimmy Saville.
And all this because I expressed my disregard for the Brittain piece. Sheesh!
I’m sure others here would appreciate you finally putting a sock in it.
December 17, 2009 at 12:54 pm
richard
Pretzelberg, I’ve asked you a simple question, a half dozen times. There’s no need to make personal attacks, really. Why don’t you want to answer this one simple question?
Do you believe that before the State of Israel was established there had never been before a Jewish state?
December 17, 2009 at 1:05 pm
richard
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/08/peace-begin-plight-palestinian-refugees?showallcomments=true#comment-51
pretzelberg
8 Dec 2009, 12:46PM
streetinsider
Is this supposed to be an academic argument pretzelberg?
I yawned because the old “There never has been a Palestinian state” is irrelevant here and is used time and time again to distract attention from the real issues.
There was, after all, no Jewish state until the current one.
==========
Thanks for the clarification.
December 17, 2009 at 3:57 pm
pretzelberg
@ richard
Oh – that comment.
The concept of “Jewish/Jew” did not to my knowledge exist at the time of David. Hence the remark – which was not intended to be offensive and was aimed specifically as a retort to yours and others’ inane references denying the Palestinians the right to self-identify as they wish.
But if you want to define David’s kingdom as a “Jewish state”, then go ahead.
Anyway: how are your delusional conspiracy theories about me “pallying with the mods” doing?
December 17, 2009 at 4:52 pm
richard
Well Pretzelberg, nobody’s trying to take away the Palestinians right to self-identity, I was stating simple fact. You can feel sorry for the Palestinians, hell, I do. They’re one of the most screwed people on this earth. They screwed themselves in 1948, have been screwed by their brethern ever since, and made into the eternal refugees by the UN, which is supposed to protect them. If only they would have supported partition in 1948, but they voted no. I know, an inconvenient fact for you.
But that certainly doesn’t mean I or any other Israeli have to play polite games and give them on a silver platter things that don’t belong to them. The geographical area of Palestine wasn’t only home to arabs and muslims, it was also home to Jews. And has been for over two millenia. Jersualem, was never an Arab or Muslim captial, even when Jordan had possession from 1948 until 1968. But it has been a Jewish capital, and is again today.
You may claim, just like the guardian folk, that these are the ramblings of some right wing extremist. And that just goes to show how blind and one sided you really are. I’m a secular Tel Aviv beach bum type of guy that would love to see mutual respect and peace for both sides, and I even support a Palestinian state in which they have control of their own destiny. But it doesn’t mean that I’m willing to give them what isn’t theirs, and let them continue to arm and try to kill me and my children.
I speak fact, not conspiracy. But apparently your friends at the Guardian have had much of an influence on you.
The fact is that Palestinian identity was only created with the birth of Israel at the earliest, and moreso after the Arabs lost another war in 1967.
Once again, personal attacks pretzelberg. You know what they say about’em. If you haven’t got a good defense (or in your case, any defense), be offensive. You seem really good at that.
“which was not intended to be offensive and was aimed specifically as a retort to yours and others’ inane references denying the Palestinians the right to self-identify as they wish.”
You can wait all you like, mate.
Chum(p)
I’m sure others here would appreciate you finally putting a sock in it.
It wasn’t a retort pretzelberg, it was a lie. And the point isn’t that you “were offensive,” the point is that you lied. Or alternatively that you actually believe the BS you push in your debates, justifying it by whatever means are convenient to you. Much like the loony gang in CIF.
Thanks for showing us what you’re really about.
What happened to RedSeaPedestrian? You still out there?
December 17, 2009 at 4:55 pm
richard
pretzelberg
@ richard
The concept of “Jewish/Jew” did not to my knowledge exist at the time of David.
Another one of your gems I suppose. Keep em coming.
December 17, 2009 at 4:56 pm
richard
pretzelberg
@ richard
“The concept of “Jewish/Jew” did not to my knowledge exist at the time of David. ”
Another one of your gems I suppose. Keep em coming.
December 17, 2009 at 5:18 pm
pretzelberg
@ richard
“You may claim, just like the guardian folk, that these are the ramblings of some right wing extremist.”
No, not really. Just that you have a lot of anger managment issues to resolve. Clearly you hate the Palestinians. Just admit it.
And what was that again about me being “cozy” with the mods? Bizarre.
“And that just goes to show how blind and one sided you really are.”
Yet again you speculate wrong and make yourself look like a fool.
December 17, 2009 at 5:25 pm
pretzelberg
@ richard
“But apparently your friends at the Guardian have had much of an influence on you.”
I have “friends at the Guardian”?
Assuming you mean CiF: which “friends” would that be? Ask e.g. orwellwasright or Papalagi about me, and the response will probably involve a four-letter word.
Yet again you have made a false assumption, merely because I challenge your views.
Can we leave it at that, now?
December 17, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Ref
Please stop. With all do respect, nothing (good) is being accomplished with this back-and-forth. This topic has a way of getting people worked up, that’s something we all understand and have felt. But it’s time for a deep breath. This argument has long past the point of the point of diminishing returns. Or of any returns.
December 18, 2009 at 1:55 am
richard
I agree with you Ref, sorry for polluting the board. I simply was trying to confirm something I had seen in the Guardian. For some strange reason Pretzelberg felt a need to hide his beliefs. And in any case, I think its very significant for people here to realize that he tends to deny a Jewish state ever existed before Israel, and thinks that we have to be polite in catering to Palestinian “identity” which is then used as ammunition to attack Israel and Jews.
I’ll make one last comment then let it lie. I have to say Pretzelberg, you’re manner of debate and going on the offense when caught in a tough situation (e.g. propogating untruths to support the Palestinian narrative) reminds me of someone else, Mr. Seth Freedman. Yea, I know, me and conspiracy theories and all that. But it really would seem to be within the realm of possibilities.
1. You’re an english bloke (right, mate – oh, I believe you claim to be german).
2. You’re arguing both sides of the fence (the British Jew and ex Israeli soldier writing for the Guardian).
3. You seem to be playfully sarcastic with the moderators at CIF (please, please can you fix it for us to have the post reinstated, because it was certainly relevant to the debate and not offensive in any way.
4. You’re manner of debate and language seem to be very similar to his, I had plenty of debates with Seth over the past couple of years in the forum. Granted, you seem more restrained, but that may be because no one is questioning or attacking you.
The anonymity of another name gives you the ability to participate in the debate as someone else.
Anyway, its just a thought I had to share.
December 18, 2009 at 9:03 pm
pretzelberg
richard
One last comment? Really?
- Interesting. First you insinuate that RedSeaPedestrian is an alter ego moniker of mine. Now I am apparently Seth Freedman!
You’d already inflicted enough damage on yourself. Why continue?
But it gets worse ….
- Nope. I’m not German, nor have I ever claimed to be. Not sure where you dreamt that up from.
- Wrong again. I argue only my own personal point of view. And is that another reference to SF??
- Playfully sarcastic? Wrong again. Simply a case of jovial banter with a cultural reference.
- I am Seth Freedman??? Ask AKUS or peter or others.
Crazy stuff.
December 18, 2009 at 9:09 pm
pretzelberg
@ richard
I’m assuming that English is not your native language (fair enough).
Well, I did anyway, but if you see similarity in my and SF’s style of writing, then that puts it beyond doubt.
Learn bit of modesty, please.
December 19, 2009 at 7:24 am
t34zakat
The disinformation in the article may have been somewhat more specific than we thought
Details of the first stage of the Northern wastewater plant
http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/88C1EB9E-6579-4212-9FD9-8E712E8F8D6C/0/NorthrenWastewaterTreatmentPlant.pdf
Notice the gap between amount sent and amount used, without careful monitoring; there would be plenty of scope for diversion.
November summary:
The North Gaza Wastewater facility was discussed at several meetings between World Bank officials and members of the Palestinian and Israeli infrastructure teams.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Increased_humanitarian_aid_Gaza_after_IDF_operation_Jan_2009.htm
December 19, 2009 at 3:29 pm
richard
Pretzelberg said “I’m assuming that English is not your native language (fair enough).”
You know what happens when you assume, just take me out of the equation.
Then you said “Well, I did anyway, but if you see similarity in my and SF’s style of writing, then that puts it beyond doubt.”
No, it doesn’t
Finally you sai d”Learn bit of modesty, please.”
You mean I should learn it from you?
Please, why don’t you tell us a little more about that made up history in which there was never a Jewish state.
December 19, 2009 at 3:38 pm
richard
Pretzleberg (you ask questions, I have to answer).
You said “Interesting. First you insinuate that RedSeaPedestrian is an alter ego moniker of mine. Now I am apparently Seth Freedman!”
I’d guess there’s also a 50/50 chance you’re the Ref from above too.
There is nothing technical from prevnting you typing a different name and pretedning you’re someone else. There is no lack of people that are willing to create username after username, even when they don’t have to to avoid censorship, to try and argue a case and pretend they have support from others.
And with the way you like to try and twist history for your own purposes (there was never a Jewish state before Israel, remember?), I don’t see there being anything stopping you from creating username after username to try and prove yourself right.
Come on, no need to be modest.
December 21, 2009 at 10:55 am
pretzelberg
@ richard
I see you did not respond to my previous post, in which I showed your 4 “points” about me to be completely false. Any other lies, crazy conspiracy theories and other childlish insinuations you’d care to throw in here?
Re. modesty: You clearly misunderstood my innocent “please can you fix it” comment – a cultural reference.
Don’t worry – people won’t think less of you if you just admit that you overreacted.
There’s plenty more material on this site to get your teeth into – I suggest you stop your obsession with me.