New Haven Independent

Posted by: Daniel Sumrall | August 2, 2006 7:16 PM

I think it's important to stress that Mr. Nadar as well as the vast majority of legitmate peace organizations are opposed to the pro-violence, militarist element in the Israeli government and not anti-Israel.

Opposition to warmongering trumps the vain nationalisms that most often engender the horrors of violent conflict. The peace movement here in New Haven, in the United States, and in Israel refuse to believe that revenge makes for sound policy.

This that is at the heart of the peace movement: the refusal to answer violence with violence until every and all are bloody and inhuman.

Pro-war politicians currently in control of the Israeli (and US) government are guaranteeing further conflict by succumbing to the easy of inflicting murder upon their enemies. The Israeli people, just as we citizens of the United States, at the core find violence, revenge, and hate abhorrent. However, many and most have been duped by vicious politicians into believing that the current war campaigns are not only justified but righteous.

To consciously make the decision to kill and kill with glee as both Hezbollah & the pro-war Israeli administration is horrific. We in the peace movement here in the United States are taking the Israeli government to task because Israel has been and will be our greatest, most sure ally. But to your closet friends you must speak the hardest truths; the truth in this case is that the Israeli government isn’t defending itself, it is giving in to bloodlust.

Posted by: LA | August 3, 2006 10:52 AM

No matter what Nader states, how long can Israel allow Hezbollah to attack it's civilians without fear of retribution?

Of course, to these people, life has no meaning, as they believe death offers them a better place (at least for the peeons that carry the bombs, something their glorious leaders shy away from). Their overzelous thinking is still mired somewhere in the 7th century.

Ralph should stick to what he knows best, consumer law, not international affairs.

Posted by: TimMcKee | August 3, 2006 11:47 AM

I think it was wrong to label Nader or Ferrucci as "Anti-Israel, Pro-Hezbollah" that seems like a almost tabloid headline worthy of talk radio.

If you say one thing against the Israel government POLICY and bombing and try to be fair you are "pro terrorist"?? Move over Rush Limbaugh!

Nader is PRO PEACE.. and so am I!

Posted by: JP | August 3, 2006 7:36 PM

I also find the assumptions in this article troubling. When someone criticizes Israel, that person is Anti-Israel? Or when someone tries to defend an unpopular group they side with terrorists? If I criticize the US government am I Anti-American?

It is also troubling that someone would comment that "to these people, life has no meaning...." I think we have all heard that before about the Vietnamese, Iraqis, and other people that we justify killing.

Posted by: Stanley Heller | August 4, 2006 12:19 PM

All this talk about human shields is rubbish. Hizbullah is in the civilian population defending them in various ways (including unfortunately apparent random missile attacks on Israeli cities) If you want to talk about human shields report on the many cases of Israeli soldiers tying Palestinians to the front of their jeeps as they go maurading through the territories. Even the Israeli high court recognized and forbid the practice.

Posted by: Jay | August 4, 2006 1:02 PM

Some times a reporter has to point out the obvious - Hezbollah is a murderous organization. They launch hundreds of rockets a day to kill civillians (including Israeli Arabs). More nefariously, they operate from civillian locations, hoping to have Lebanese civillians killed to grease their propaganda machine. Since Hezbollah was founded by the Iranians in 1984, it has killed more Americans than any terrorist group other than Al-Qaida.
If Nader or Ferrucci are apologists for Hezbollah, SHAME ON THEM! A Peace activist has a duty to criticize the instigators of violence- Hezbollah!

Posted by: Ralph Nader c/o Matthew Zawisky | August 4, 2006 5:30 PM

Dear Paul Bass,

There are two letters omitted from your unfairly crafted report of the news conference.
The word “conventional� was printed as “convention.� Other more significant omissions shall rest on your journalistic conscience.

Peace with Justice,

Ralph Nader

Posted by: Jenn | August 4, 2006 7:09 PM

Nader has been showing his fascistic true face since 2000, bought and paid for by republicans, investing in the same corporations as the republicans do. He's the one who owned stock in Occidental Oil, not Gore.. and those who still make excuses for him are his little Nazi wannabe clones.

Posted by: Allan Brison | August 5, 2006 8:09 AM

To the Independent

Only an ideologue on the subject of Israel/Palestine could equate Ralph Nader’s statements on the Israeli bombardment of Lebenon as being either “anti-Israel� or “pro-Hezbollah�.

Consider: in response to a cross-border raid where 2 soldiers were captured and 1 soldier killed, the Israeli government has killed more than 1 THOUSAND civilians, created over 1 MILLION refugees; created widespread destruction of buildings, bridges, and roads; and targeted wheat silos, water treatment plants, milk factories, and hospitals to boot. And all this to a new government dedicated to being an US ally.

Imagine such a response to the British/Irish Republican Army (I.R.A.) conflict in Northern Ireland. Imagine if the British had responded to cross-border raids from the IRA with a wholesale bombardment of the Irish Republic including Dublin.

Imagine if the British had created 1 million refugees in Ireland.

The militaristic approaches of both the US and the Israeli governments to the problems in the Middle East are not working. To point this out is neither anti-Israeli nor anti-American. Nor is it anti-Semitic.

Allan Brison

Posted by: Jon-Jay Tilsen | August 5, 2006 9:37 PM

Nader justifies Hizballah missile attacks and cross-border raids against Israel in part due to Israel's violation of Lebanon's airspace. Israel is not violating Lebanese airspace in order to broadcast traffic reports, but rather is tracking the movement of arms intended only to attack innocent Israelis.

Posted by: taildrag | August 6, 2006 11:53 AM

Neither the story nor any of the comments mentioned the fact that both Nader's parents are Lebanese immigrants. Perhaps he has a better prospective than some of us on Mideast matters, especially concerning Lebanon.

Posted by: aaron | August 6, 2006 1:39 PM

How many people who have commented here weren't even at the Nader event? Even Paul came in a bit late, methinks... but with good reason, I'm sure! Anyway, Nader wasn't pro-Hezbollah (and it's bordering on yellow journalism to suggest that he was, but hey, this is the Internet!) but he wasn't exactly anti-Hezbollah either. The problem with Nader's remarks (and similarly with some of the remarks at the recent stand-with-Israel rally at the JCC -- Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic's arrogant and tribalistic diatribe comes to mind) about the Middle East is not so much with substance -- there wasn't much of that anyway -- as with tone and emphasis. A Martian whose spaceship happened to land at the NHFPL during Nader's press conference (or was it a Green Party rally, or both? does it matter?) would have thought that Nader and by extension the left were completely obsessed with Israeli "war crimes" -- especially if he (it?) came in during the Q&A, which was devoted almost entirely to demonizing Israel (with Nader curiously insisting that the truth would be obvious to anyone who simply read Ha'aretz, whose positions he mischaracterized -- the paper has been editorially pro-war, while questioning tactics -- and whose name he mispronounced)... those of us who came to the event hoping to see that progressives could for once be united, behind a message of thrashing Joe Lieberman, instead found ourselves at an ANSWER rally. (Albeit one with free books -- thanks, guys!) Incidentally, was I the only one who noticed that Nader sometimes stumbles over his words almost as much as Bush?

Even those of us who like Ralph Nader and the left sometimes wonder if it is in the interests of either to spend so much time talking so stridently about Israel. The New Haven Green Party has lost some of its best minds and best organizers because of discontentment about the tone over Israel and the veiled and not-so-veiled questioning of the Jewish state's legitimacy, the "liberation of Palestine," "right of return," etc. Isn't it time to give up these tired slogans -- along with "Nader is pro-peace, and so am I!" -- and work on crafting a message of reconciliation that doesn't alienate so darned many people?

As for this silly canard about 'tough love' we frequently hear from the most virulent critics of Israel, OF COURSE you can and SHOULD be pro-peace (and therefore critical of steps by Israel that work against peace) and pro-Israel at the same time. There is a WHOLE MOVEMENT of pro-Israel, pro-peace activists -- e.g. many wonderful members of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, Americans for Peace Now, Tikkun -- but Ralph Nader made quite clear on Wednesday that he wants no part of that coalition, wants no part of rhetorical or moral balance, and wants no part of challenging the left to review and critique some of its more silly and self-destructive prejudices.

But again, thanks for the free book.

Posted by: Jon-Jay Tilsen | August 6, 2006 6:44 PM

Reader Brison writes"...Consider: in response to a cross-border raid where 2 soldiers were captured and 1 soldier killed...."

Let's not speak in a vacuum. Consider that Hizballah has been shooting rockets at Israel for years:

27 May 2006 - An IDF soldier was wounded when Katyushas were fired at an army base at Mt. Meron in the upper Galilee.
21 Nov 2005 - An attempt to kidnap an IDF soldier was foiled when paratroopers patrolling near Rajar village discerned a Hizbullah unit approaching. Private David Markovitz opened fire, killing all four. In a heavy attack of mortars and Katyusha rockets that ensued, nine soldiers and and two civilians were injured.
29 June 2005 - More than 20 mortars were fired from across the border. Cpl. Uzi Peretz of the Golani Brigade was killed and four soldiers wounded, including the unit's doctor. Fire was exchanged and helicopters and planes attacked five Hizbullah outposts in the Reches Ramim area.
7 Apr 2005 - Two Israeli Arabs from the village of Rajar on the Israel-Lebanon border were kidnapped by Hizbullah operatives and held in captivity for four days in an attempt to obtain information on Israel.
7 Apr 2005 - Two Israeli Arabs from the village of Rajar on the Israel-Lebanon border were kidnapped by Hizbullah operatives and held in captivity for four days in an attempt to obtain information on Israel.
7 May 2004 - Fire in the Mt. Dov sector. IDF soldier Dennis Leminov was killed, and two other soldiers were severely wounded. The IDF returned fire.
6 Oct 2003 - Staff Sgt. David Solomonov was killed when Hizbullah fired at an IDF force south of the Fatma Gate in the eastern sector. In addition, the Hizbullah fired missiles and rockets at an IDF post in the Reches Ramim area.

10 Aug 2003 - Haviv Dadon, 16, of Shlomi, was struck in the chest and killed by shrapnel from an anti-aircraft shell fired by Hizbullah terrorists in Lebanon. Four others were wounded.

That is a partial listing of recent incidents. More to the point, Israelis know that Hizballah was stockpiling missiles and other weapons in preparation for an attack. Israelis are going to defend their own lives; get real.

Posted by: mk | August 7, 2006 9:55 AM

And THIS man wanted to be president?????????????

Posted by: Pat Thurston | August 7, 2006 2:08 PM

I am heartened to see that so many have taken issue with being called anti-Israel for condemning Israel's actions in this conflict. I have long supported Israel, but come on folks. We can think critically, and we can criticize Israel when it is warranted.

I read this morning that Hezbollah has not attacked civilian targets for over 10 years. Yes, they have attacked military targets - not civilian ones. Are they then still terrorists? Not according to international law.

Israeli's are criticizing their own government; debates rage in the Knesset. But here in America, we are to mind our words lest we be labelled anti-Israel, or worse, anti-Semite.

We're better than that.

But to be absolutely clear, I condemn the actions of Hezbollah in the violence period. There were steps being taken, albeit slowly, to disarm Hezbollah per UN Resolution. That's not going to happen now. And if Israel or the United States thinks this is going to increase the security of our nations, we're in for another sorry surprise

Posted by: Ned | August 7, 2006 4:39 PM

Wow, religious people killing one another, what a surprise! Of course "Gott Mit Uns" no matter which side you're on.

Posted by: nfjanette | August 7, 2006 5:10 PM

The open civil war between pro-British and pro-Irish military forces and their civilian supporters is hardly the example to use of a moderate use of violence. True enough, the British didn't bomb Dublin (which, before the rebuilding over the past 10 years might not have looked much different in some areas after a cruise missile strike), but they most certainly have a long history of military action in Ulster; there is even a foot patrol move called the "Ulster Shuffle" created from being attacked from behind by I.R.A. militants. And, while neither military side has used air attacks, the treatment by the "civilian" supporters of each side toward prisoners makes a stay Abu Ghraib prison at the hands of American M.P.s look like a cruise vacation. The twisted acts of violence fueled by generations of warfare in Northern Ireland are hardly to be offered as an example of anything but the most depraved of human behavior to the shame of all decent Irish and British citizens.

Posted by: Jon B | August 7, 2006 9:51 PM

Leave Ralph Nadar alone. He is a far better American than any elected lawmakers in DC.

Posted by: jane mills | August 8, 2006 12:53 AM

I don't get it. Nader did not justify Hizbollah attacks, he described the conditions he thought gave rise to Hizbollah and its supporters, not least of which were the social services it offers that create community dependance on them, and the aftermath of Sharon's efforts in Lebanon. I attended the conference and I don't think it was possible to conclude from it that Nader supported Hizbollah and its bomb throwing.

Does any reasonable person support Hizbollah? Its agenda is to eliminate the state of Israel.

I think at issue is this paragraph especially: "Nader gave a history of Hezbollah at odds with the convention view offered by Democrats and Republicans alike, who see the group as terrorists."

It suggests he denies their behavior is terrorizing Israelis and also that the history was inaccurate.

I understood his criticism of the US response to the crisis to be that the US was not working hard enough to help create a cease fire, and was not holding Israel accountable for excesses, not that the US was supporting the wrong side.

Nader pushed the Israeli newspaper Haaretz quite a bit during his talk, which pleased me, because I think a lot of anti-Israeli rhetoric among Green members is not informed enough and could benefit from a source like Haaretz. It is accessible in English on the Internet.

There was an interesting peice on Sharon in Sunday's NYT, that also discussed the special problems of past fights in Lebanon. It's a tall order to defend yourself in a way that your enemy says later was decent. And it takes a decent enemy to notice it.

Posted by: Jim | August 9, 2006 9:33 AM

Pat, I don't know where you "read" that Hezbollah hasn't attacked civilian targets in 10 years, you should read the New York Times or Washington Post once in a while, they are very reliable sources of information.