One of the things that we teach law students is how to address a jury in understandable terms without talking down to them. It is sometimes a delicate balance in dealing with complex questions or fact patterns. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu showed how not to strike that balance when he took the entire United Nation’s General Assembly through a “this is a bomb, this is a fuse” demonstration that instantly became a mockery around the world. That was a real missed opportunity when following Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who never fails to offer a clownish, absurd performance. It is one of those debates that you win by showing up and just stating your case . . . until you pull out cutout from the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show.
What is odd is that Netanyahu has a strong case about the danger of Iran having a bomb but proceeded in dumbing down the presentation to the point of insulting everyone above the level of a pre-schooler. Did anyone actually watch this presentation in advance? Presumably so given the fact that it was prepared for the event. That leads me to think that people around Netanyahu are either so clueless or enabling that no one bothered to tell Netanyahu that it looked ridiculous. In fairness, one of the aides may have said “Prime Minister, this is a bomb” and Netanyahu might have thought he was suggesting an actual line for the presentation.
The funny thing is that he had me at hello in describing the danger of a sponsor of terrorism with the bomb (though I am against a war as the way of addressing proliferation concerns with Iran). Then he pulled out the cartoonish diagram of a bomb and I actually thought he was making some type of joke. He then continued to explain the bomb with Romper Room delivery to the General Assembly. The only thing that he didn’t do was say “this is Billy the Bomb.”
In my view, it is a great example of losing an audience with you delivery. What do you think?
In the end, I do not know why he didn’t show the actual footage of Ahmadinejad heading out to get the bomb:
Mike Spindell,
If you look for enemies you will find one. I am not an enemy of Israel.
It appears to me that you don’t like the use of certain words. For instance “partisan” as a description of you. Why would you not a partisan of the Jews. I find that quite natural and am quite comfortable with your being so. Nor am I one so one-eyed that I have not noticed your positions stated with regard to Israel’s policies, and numerous other posts in the same vein.
SO WHY ASSUME WHEN I CALL YOU A PARTISAN THAT I AM AN ENEMY TO YOU. I mean quite simply that you in toto take Israel’s part. A quite natural position, I feel. And do not feel uncomfortable with you because of that. So don’t feel slurred.
(I must beg your understanding for my language problems, it is a problem, just now I was trying to find a good english word to replace “fientlig”: the word inimical occurred after much thought. So I choose words which come, which not necessarily are appropriate to expressing that which I wish to say, and not being informed after 45 years as a Swedish resident, definitely are not colloqual or idiomatic (whatever they mean). So loosen up and stop getting hung up on words.)
Next you write:
“The first count is the question of why Israeli troops should have stepped in to stop the attacks of Lebanese partisans against an armed terrorist organization that was taking over their country with the assistance of the Syrians. This is the fact that many of you who are so quick to claim “war crimes” seemly (sic?) to conveniently forget.”
What’s with this “you” sh*t. I am not a simple thrower of “war crimes” accusations. Nor do I conveniently forget things. Prove that if you wish. Guilt by coflation, I believe. With whom I associate is none of your business, but it ain’t such types.
I think instead that you should realize the following:
I was not writing a position paper on the jews, existence of Israel. judgements on the existence of war crimes, etc. I WAS SIMPLY CAUTIONING MATTS JOHNSON THAT ISRAEL WOULD NOT THE AN EASY VICTIM IN A WAR AS HE CLAIMED IT WOULD BE.
So why do you go looking for enmity where there is none. I could give you now a more nuanced (?) picture, but not even then a well-informed one. But what would be the purpose of my trying to do that. I am a person who notes, considers sources, tries to note in passing opposing parties POV, etc. And I am definitely not one of thóse who search after “facts” confirmning already held positions. So assuming the worst, then you will find it. A little good will goes a long way too.
You should be sad at using such arguments on why the massacre occured and Israels part in it. I have no knowledge. Why should Israel have defended these people? I don’t even know if they COULD control the battelfield and defend them. Does the action of the Hezbollah justify the killing of women and young boys? You imply that it does, as I read it.
Let us not go into the history of the actions of and in that area. I took an out based on what I read, no Israeli soldiers killed women and children, falangists are said to have done it.
So whether this and that in terms of moral responsibility is for you to ponder. Your concern on that question is a positive characteristic of the Jews, ie to consider their eventual responsibility in the matter. So be pleased with my recongnition of that. How many americans even know that falangists were involved. How many know that war crimes investigation was done? Do you know of the investigations. List them and explain them please?
Tell us also of the war crime investigation which Israel recently put down as partial and defect, led I believe by a renowned jurist from South Africa of jewish faith, to judge by the name.
If you want to expand the discussion, fine, but I get to suggest subjects also.
Since you are the better informed, without doubt, as to accusations of war crimes and the result of investigation, who did the investigation at whose instance, findings, eventual sanctions, etc. then it is only fair to say that you should do the investigation to clarify thie matter of “terrible war crimes”. Terrible, aren’t all war crimes “terrible” by definition.
Or for that matter offensive war should be and is a crime itself.
Do you really think that I am against the state of israel. Not per se. I have opinions on it being a jewish state, but that is their privilege. And I respect that choice. They are surrounded by muslim countries where tolerance for other religions is deplorable, and their actions criminal in my eyes. Resident Israelis, on the other hand, write stories of persecution or discrimination of israeli arabs. Myself I note but have no view. No studies read, etc.
So the right of Israel to exist is secure with me. Never been otherwise.
But as to war crimes, which was NOT the point of my comment, I would be quite interested in hearing or getting links to Israeli govennment or IDF studies on specific incidents. You could start with the first Hezbollah war. And then we could see what any international investigation might have found.
As to Arab dominance and giving Israel trouble in the UN general assembly. I can only say that there is where these conflicts are supposed to be handled. And the Arabs and allied nations surely don’t have a majority of the nation votes. Or do they?
I feel that you came looking for trouble. Why, only you know. Do tell. And please drop the adversary position, it is not necessary when discussing things with me.
Perhaps you know more about the etymnology of the word “partisan”. But to me partisans are people are people I respect, not least for their role in fighting the Nazis in WW2. So that is how I use it. How you use it is up to you. It is not pejoratively meant in my mouth.
Home
Expand & Learn
Look Up & Learn
Invest & Grow
Contact Us
“HOME > LOOK UP & LEARN
V2 Vocabulary Building Dictionary
partisan
noun, adjective
Definition: (n.) 1. a strong supporter of a group, person, or cause; 2. a member of an unofficial military; (adj.) 1. biased and unwilling to listen to other opinions when supporting a particular person, group, or cause; 2. devoted to a group or cause
Synonyms: (n.) defender, supporter, patron, adherent, guerrilla, (adj.) biased, prejudiced, partial
Antonyms: (adj.) non-partisan, open-minded, tolerant, unbiased
Tips: Although partisan has many definitions, it is most commonly used to describe someone with one-sided political beliefs (liberal or conservative). Think of the word party and its meaning of “political organization.” A partisan person is partial to one political party. The related word partisanship also denotes a bias toward one thing over another.”
Usage Examples:
The dinner was held for partisan supporters of the President. (adherent, biased) adjective
Washington DC has become too partisan and neither side is willing to work with the other. (biased, entrenched) adjective”
ID707,
I understand and have seen from your writings that English may have become your second language, therefore I’ve supplied a definition of “partisan”. I draw your attention to its use as an adjective (1).
“SO WHY ASSUME WHEN I CALL YOU A PARTISAN THAT I AM AN ENEMY TO YOU”
Why do you assume that because I disagree with you and present what I see as the facts of the matter, that I consider you a enemy? That seems a common theme with you and it is silly. I look at your contributions here quite positively and welcome the fact that you have become a regular. I respect your opinions, which usually try to supply reasoned arguments. However, at time you take disagreement for umbrage which is not meant. That tendency is more your paranoia, than it is a reflection of an others comments.
“Do you really think that I am against the state of israel. Not per se. I have opinions on it being a jewish state, but that is their privilege. And I respect that choice.”
You have stated that your preference is for a one state solution and in the context of discussing Israel that would mean it would no longer be a Jewish State. You have the right to your opinion, however, I disagree with it. Not in anger, nor without an understanding of how you may believe this validly.
Please stop finding battles, when the reality is that it is a discussion. and a disagreement on some matter.
If we bomb the Iranian nuclear production sites with a drone then no child will be left behind and the world will be a better place. Consider that you ….
idealist707 1, September 30, 2012 at 3:57 am
Mike Spindell,
That was meant to give an even-handed history to MattJohnson. He was claiming thet Israel would lose an Arab attack. I wished to disillusion him of that conclusion.
=============
I was not claiming that Israel would lose an Arab attack. But they would. Without the United States, Israel will cease to exist.
“As a partisan Jew I am sure you are very familiare with the Hesbollah wars. Slaughters of young unarmed men were done in some villages, whether by Israeli troops or like in Bosnia where the Holland troop let the serbs do the massacre, here one explanation says that the Falangist faction did the killing.
Was there an international investigation commission?
Of course most recently Israel did not accept the study of the South African led UN commission. Why?”
ID707,
I may be partial to Israel’s existence as a Jew who believes we’ll need a place to go if the sh*t goes down. However, “partisan” in the sense to blindly supporting Israel not so much. The entire experience with Hezbollah in Lebanon is not something that lends itself to great clarity and is one that has had lots of propaganda from the Hezbollah side. You of course are aware of the murkiness in that you quickly try to draw parallels to Bosnia, because you know that the massacre laid to Sharon’s feet, was not committed by Israeli soldiers. The blame was put o Sharon for not stopping the killing, which I think is specious on two counts.
The first count is the question of why Israeli troops should have stepped in to stop the attacks of Lebanese partisans against an armed terrorist organization that was taking over their country with the assistance of the Syrians. This is the fact that many of you who are so quick to claim “war crimes” seemly to conveniently forget. Syria had invaded Lebanon. The Lebanese Civil War, from 1975 to 1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War was in fact a war where the PLO Hezbollah faction tried to take over their “host” country. This was a curiously PLO theme also in Jordan, when they tried to take over that “host” country as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan Surely you’re sophisticated enough to understand that these are not simple black and white issues to be reduced to a morality that no side shares? Yet you use the words “war crimes” with the intelligent deliberation of a partisan yourself.
The second reason is the most obvious. Lebanon had been a relatively peaceful, democratic and prosperous state until the militancy of their PLO guests broke it asunder, with the backing of at least the Syrians, who coveted their prosperity. The Lebanese were battling against a ruthless, internal enemy, with outside help. As with any civil war there were massacres and evils committed by both the Lebanese ad the PLO/Hezbollah. Now please specifically provide me with a list of the “war crimes” you accuse Israel of, with dates and numbers.
As far as UN impartiality goes, I refer you to the number of Islamic States that reside there and the fact that for many years they have carried the day against Israel in the General Assembly. Now of course perhaps it’s your belief that Israel does no have the right to exist as a Jewish State? Well you are entitled to your opinion, but it would seem that too might be ascribed to your being “partisan”.
Mike Spindell,
That was meant to give an even-handed history to MattJohnson. He was claiming thet Israel would lose an Arab attack. I wished to disillusion him of that conclusion.
So I was there in the West Bank and Israel in 1967, And I assumed he knew that the Arabs, a fairly large coalistion of nations, attacked Israel.
In 1983, the Yom Kippur, the highest holy days, Syrian, Egypt and Jordan attacked again and lost more territory to Israel.
As a partisan Jew I am sure you are very familiare with the Hesbollah wars. Slaughters of young unarmed men were done in some villages, whether by Israeli troops or like in Bosnia where the Holland troop let the serbs do the massacre, here one explanation says that the Falangist faction did the killing.
Was there an international investigation commission?
Of course most recently Israel did not accept the study of the South African led UN commission. Why?
I don’t know went wrong in the second Hezbollah encounter, but disorderly retreats resulted with many tank losses by the IDF were recorded. It was psychologically an expensive war for Israel, it was claimed by Israelis. One notable animated film was made based on the experiences of a soldier who was there.
Want more?, then perhaps you can correct and enlighten us. I trust you are here only wishing to set the record straight.
Conventional bombs don’t have fallout, just consequences. If Israel were to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear weapons, real or imagined, it might wake the world up to the insanity of too many nations armed to the teeth and too many heads of state willing to use those weapons. Or- perhaps the world would just file into the stadiums to cheer- as usual. “Don’t forget to bring the flag, dear”.
HenMan 1, September 29, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Matt Johnson-
If Mexico was threatening the United States with a nuclear weapon, would we be asking Israel to bomb Mexico City for us?
=====================================
No, we would go down there and kick their as*. We can’t bomb them because we would get the fallout.
idealist707 1, September 29, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Like most of the animal world, we tolerate hard radiation poorly.
I think you’ve got some of that in Japan already.
One wrong decision and we blow our collective brains out.
Bibi’s included.
Anybody read “On the Beach”?
I guess those younger than me had to hide under their schooldesks at some point as practice. Have we forgotten that?
Bibi is the only one waving nuke-equipped rockets and saying let’s do it. A good occasion for some illegal CIA asssasinations?
Now a joke in bad taste, naw I don’t dare. Will email it to a friend instead. Suffer! Must respect sensitivities.
“Israel won and took over territory in June 1967.
Israel won and took over territory in 1983, if memory serves me well.
Israel won and did terrible war crimes in Hesbollah territory.
Israel lost the second encounter with Hezbollah.”
ID707,
Israel’s winning in 1967 and 1983 came after they were attacked, if you remember. Also could you specifically refresh my memory on just what “terrible war crimes” Israel committed against Hezbollah and also when they lost their last encounter?
Matt Johnson-
If Mexico was threatening the United States with a nuclear weapon, would we be asking Israel to bomb Mexico City for us?
Matt Johnson,
Interesting thought.
Just for the record:
Israel won and took over territory in June 1967.
Israel won and took over territory in 1983, if memory serves me well.
Israel won and did terrible war crimes in Hesbollah territory.
Israel lost the second encounter with Hezbollah.
I’m not taking bets on any future ones.
The risk of escalation with Chinese and Russian involvement for their own interests, not those of client nations, is the biggest danger to humanity.
Like most of the animal world, we tolerate hard radiation poorly.
Daddy Barack: “Son, you must learn to fight your own battles. Didn’t I give you all those nice fighter-bombers for your birthday?”
==========================================
What happens if daddy doesn’t come to the rescue? Israel will be dead.
Bibi: “Daddy- Mahmoud is picking on me again. Will you beat him up for me? Please, Please, Please!”
Daddy Barack: “Son, you must learn to fight your own battles. Didn’t I give you all those nice fighter-bombers for your birthday?”
“The funny thing is that he had me at hello in describing the danger of a sponsor of terrorism with the bomb…”
The US and Israel are even more dangerous because the both currently have nuclear weapons and are sponsors of a terrorist organization, the MEK.
Eddie,
It has many names. Koolaid drinkers is fine. Matrix, Faux democracy. 1984. Democracy’s opium.
Will any name awaken the dreamers?
I feel haunted every freaking day. I see KoolAid drinkers . . . EVERYWHERE!
I watched the video of Netanyahoo on tv and observed many of the delegates there listening. They did not look real bright. I dont see anything wrong with laying out the bright red line with the drawing and the red ink. When the ayatollah gets his nuclear bomb he will lend it off to his Hamas guys or Hezbollah or students. Then you folks who ridicule the Israelis for being red line clear on this issue will wonder why you were so lame. When the bomb goes off in Newark how are you gonna hold anyone accountable when it did not arrive in a plane or missle directly from Tehran?
This will happen and then this blog and the comments will be a nice haunting reference point.
“It may not be Israel where the bomb is set off. Most likely some place like Jersey.”
You betcha! Definately not Israel. Just ask the survivors of the USS Liberty. Our so-called allies in Tel Aviv are masters of the false flag op. Even our own intelligence agencies consider them “rogue”. Too bad some eager beaver from a worthless “think tank” spilled the beans recently when calling for (another) false flag to give the neocons their latest phony war. Thankfully, it didn’t make the network news.
At least pretend to do some investigating, S-for-brains media peeps. Y’all were a bit too quick on the draw last time blaming that evil, cave-dwelling, Muslim Mastermind. Sorry, not convincing. Once more . . . with f-e-e-l-i-n-g.
Next time, Anchor Dude, take five, grab a smoke, casually walk back into the studio, clip on your mike, sit down, stare into the camera with your carefully rehearsed, grief-stricken countenance, and read your script: “Them dirty Mooslum terr’ists done it! They hate us for our freedom!”
I’m promoting Rachel Maddow for those up to it.
Fasten your seatbelts first. Sorry no subtext or translations.
I think it is a effective contrast to Bibi. Funny, women are like that. Remember Israel’s woman prime minister?
You can skip my sales pitch if you like. But try the program. Hope you have the pause button handy, that and the replay might be handy.
http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/27/14129778-romney-still-silent-on-afghanistan-as-military-report-gives-the-surge-an-f?lite
Somebody badmouthed Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. Said something about not being able to even listen through a whole show.
Well, we’re talking about stupid “women” who text while they are walking near cliffs, So why not introduce one who has respect for her listeners and offers a full hour (?) of rapid-fire factual analysis of the political scene.
The one linked above covers the facts that Mitt won’t touch the war in Afghanistan. He acknoweledges that there are veterans who need help, but won’t say how he is going to fix the problem. And worse of all on the consequences of war, he does not mention that his Repulbican collegues (you know the party he is leading) are blocking a routine yearly bill to increase compensation to widows and children of slain soldiers (cost of living increases). He won’t take the war in his mouth.
We don’t know what the Repubs and Mitt want to do. The convention gave no clue she ssys.
And she is not just pro-Obama, she takes up what the results of the annual stats by our military in Afghanistan per “Enemy initiated attacks” and “IED explosións”. Well, she showed quite thoroughly, with easily understood graphics, that the surge gave results alright. It has given NEGATIVE results. The surge was a riptide effect for us. There are roghtly 30% more events than in the period before the surge began. And we now have 68,000 facing death and maiming every day. What are you gonna do, Mitt? Anybody know?
She cited the longest serving Republican, Mr “Stand Pat” from Florida. What does he ssy?
Take them home immediately, is his answer. No more.
It is not worth risking young men’s lives for.
(My paraphrase)
So you see their are intelligent programs written for adults and delivered by women who can think and TALK even. Of course, she might wander over a cliff if she ever got a chance to put a question to Mitt Romney