HP blogger Ahmed Moor, who Zach fisked here, has written another article about the recent remarks of US Senator Charles Schumer and a variety of other topics. Like many of the other bloggers who have commented on this issue, Moor takes Schumer's remarks as a sign of the control Zionists have over the US government.
He writes, "The interview offers a fascinating look into the way Senate Zionists manipulate the president's policy in the region." Yes, "Senate Zionists manipulate", or, in reality speak, Senators who support Israel disagree with the President. I keep making this point on the Huffington Post, but I'll make it here again: During the Bush years, disagreeing with the President was considered among the left to be the greatest thing ever and they would become rightly enraged if anyone suggested they were disloyal to America for criticizing the President. But now that Obama is doing what the left agrees with, they are using the hated tactics of the right for their own purposes and don't see the problem.
Moor also rewrites some history and cause and effect with this sentence, "The siege is a direct result of Palestinian elections in 2006 which resulted in the election of Hamas parliamentarians." We should clearly believe Mr. Moor over the Israeli government which has explicitly stated that the siege is caused only by Hamas' violence and aggression. The facts that the siege is being relaxed every day and that the blockade would end if Shalit was returned seemed to have escaped Mr. Moor's description of events.
But worst of all is Mr. Moor's description of the blockade of Gaza as "collective punishment". He links to the Fourth Geneva Convention, but unfortunately for him his link does not state that a blockade constitutes collective punishment. The term "collective punishment" is used for treatment of an occupied population. Wikipedia has an example of when the British government in Mandatory Palestine punished an entire town of Arabs for the crimes of a small group of unknown Arabs, or when they punished an entire town of Jews for the crimes of a small group of unknown Jews. When you actively punish a large group of occupied people for the crimes of a small subset of them, that is considered to be collective punishment. There are a number of reasons why this does not apply to the Gaza situation. First, Gaza is not considered to be occupied, no matter what the UN says. Second, blockades have never in this history of the world been considered to be collective punishment. The British blockade of Germany during WWII is not considered collective punishment and the US embargo of Cuba is not considered collective punishment. Third, Hamas is not "a small subset" of the Gaza population. They are the elected and widely supported government of the Gazans. If they declare war on Israel and Israel takes steps to fight back, the Gazans simply cannot divorce themselves from Hamas and say we are not to blame! Defining the blockade of Gaza is twisting the definition of collective punishment far away from where it was originally intended by the Geneva Conventions.
Lastly, in a shocking display of intellectual dishonesty, Mr. Moor brings up General Petraeus' supposed comments in which the general stated US support for Israel was putting US troops in danger, even though the General himself stated that interpretation of his statement was wrong. The Huffington Post even covered it. But I guess old anti-Israel rumors die hard, especially when no one calls you out on it.
Great blog post, Mr. Moor. Full of half-truths, personal attacks, and outright lies.