Those Gazans deserve what they get for supporting Hamas. Wait. . .

"Israel started Hamas, sayss Charles Freeman, the veteran U.S. diploma and former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia [the Israeli domestic intelligency agency], which had a feeling that they could use it to hem in the PLO."

The Devil's Game, Robert Dreyfuss at 191-192. (This page can be read in the Google Books limited preview.)

That wacky conspiracy theorist Charles Freeman! He couldn't possibly be a former U.S. ambadador to Saudi Arabia, Distinguished Fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Freeman,_Jr.

That's fairly well known, NE.

Hm. Well, try it this way.

1. Israeli leader: "Strangle Gaza!"

2. Terrorist attack (of a sort that if the Israelis did it, it wouldn't even make the news or disturb the "peace" in the Occupied Territories) kills Israelis.

3. Terrorist group (or "plucky little freedom fighters" if they were Israelis) says, "We did it because of Israeli policy toward Gaza."

4. Israeli leader: "They did it because they hate Jews! Drive the Arab cockroaches into the sea!"

It's already a familiar pattern in that context.

What's most interesting about this subject, NE, if you're a collector of facts that are hidden in plain sight, is the role that the US played in causing the Palestinian civil war in 2007. AFAIK the NYT has never mentioned this-Ethan Bronner scrupulously avoided mentioning it today and that's been the usual pattern. Lawrence Wright avoided mentioning it in the New Yorker article on Gaza last year. Jon talked about this in June 2007, and Tony Karon did so in the link below and David Rose went into more detail in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair (which you can read online), but for most of the MSM it's a non-event, something that never happened.

link

Getting back to Schumer, if one goes by what one sees in blog comment sections his attitude is pretty common among Americans who argue about this subject--over at Obsidian Wings there's been a long thread on this and for the Israel defenders the blockade might or might not be a humanitarian problem, but if it is then it should be loosened slightly, but for them the real issue is Hamas rocket fire. Israeli violence isn't an issue--it just doesn't seem to register with them that it is on a much larger scale and isn't just a response to Palestinian violence (often it's the reverse).

So Schumer goes beyond denialism, i.e., claiming war crimes aren't happening, to actively advocating for war crimes.

And sadly I'm unsurprised.

Those that falsely claim that the blockade is simply aimed at preventing "Hamas missiles," however odious they are in their lies, are at least implicitly recognizing that collective punishment is against international law.

Having not heard much of it, I wonder, what was the rhetoric against the "Tall Trees" in Rowanda in the days before they GOT DOWN to the business of genocide?

Duh, KSM is a terrorist. He doesn't think like you or me. He's lying. Who ya gonna believe?

Apparently, Chuck, waterboarding KSM 200-300 times WASN'T enough to making him admit to the FACT that he just hates OUR freedoms, go figure. Since, just like a witch, he survived the "Test By Water" he must be telling the truth. He seems to truely believe the Devil's lie that somehow WE are backing Israel's attacks on Gaza. That Ole Red Devil makes one hell of a lie.

Donald Johnson

Tony Karon is really sharp. Thanks for the other info too. It was new to me, though it doesn't surprise me. Abrams' behavior in Central America in the 80s was the same.

Here's a little blurb from a recent book, The War for Wealth, by German journalist Gabor Steingart that I was reminded of your pointing me to these latest examples of modern trickness:

"Anyone who compares the powerful of the nineteenth century with those at the beginning of the twenty-first century realizes one thing: life was a great deal more difficult in the days of Napoleon, Queen Victoria, and Kaiser Wilhelm II than under the leadership of Gordon Brown or Georse W Bush. The rulers were crude and undemocratic, and they had little regard for anvone whose ethnic roots or skin color differed from their own. They raised no objections when hundreds of thousands had to die so that their interests could be protected. In the days of Napoleon and Victoria, actions that today would draw the attention of the secretary general of the United Nations and inevitably end in a war crimes tribunal guaranteed nothing more damning than a gilded entry in the history books. Indeed, a proudly displayed lack of regard for fellow human beings was the badge of an entire epoch. . . . But the powerful of yesterday had a leg up on today's leaders in one respect: they were more honest."

Henry Kissinger praised Steingart's book as a "lucid and compelling reality check."

How mich difference is there between Schumer and KSM?

The fact of the matter is that the Palestinians have tried many times to have their concerns addressed legally and non-violently but have been met with contempt. We have gotten to where we are today after more then fifty years of outrages.

And to make matters worse, what has Schumer done to advance the DREAM Act?

yeah right. our freedoms? why aren't they going after switzerland or canada? schumer is a joke for playing into that noise. we will always have problems as long as we continue our flawed foreign policy.

N E: Henry Kissinger praised Steingart's book as a "lucid and compelling reality check."

Wait a minute wait a minute. You're citing Henry Kissinger -- war criminal, terrorist kingpin, and professional liar Henry Kissinger -- as some kind of guide to what is "reality"?

And apart from that, one other thing counts:

Shumer: "A Champion of Wall Street Reaps Benefits"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/business/14schumer.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

Duncan

I know you're just zinging me, but I'm just citing Henry K as endorsing the views of an author who explained pretty nicely that Rulers are up to the same atrocities they always were up to, but they used to be able to be honest about it because that was their right and duty. Now, like Henry K, they have to lie lie lie because people will get outraged and demand new rulers.

You've got a point that when a first-rate professional liar like Henry K says something, even if it appears to be against his interest, you can't be sure he's still not lying. After all, pretty much everything he says is a lie, which frankly doesn't make him all that unusual.

Is pointing out that Schumer is strangling Palestinians for their freedom too obvious, or did I just miss someone doing it?