Jump to content

Israel vs. Middle Eastern Arab states


Recommended Posts

(attributed to A. Einstein)

Ps Nice to see a quote from the most famous Zionist of all time in your signature.

Interesting idea that Berty is the most famous Zionist. Do you really think so? I'd expect for the general public this will indeed be the case. I suppose most people would probably be hard pressed to name any Zionists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 749
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

^ I wasn't quibbling. What I found interesting about the idea is that I'd never previously considered the question. On reflection I could not (and still can not) think of any other obvious candidate. If pressed I might suggest David Ben-Gurion or Golda Meir, but with no real conviction. If the question was "Who is the most famous of the currently active Zionists" my answer would certainly be Bibi, but generally I think your choice of Einstein seems fair.

 

Lamentably, were a polling organisation to ask typical people the question it is probable that most would not even know what a Zionist is, let alone who they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...most would not even know what a Zionist is, let alone who they are.

 

A lot of our discussion seems to have come about through a difference of opinion of what Zionism means. Netanyahu the Zionist is a lot different than Einstein the Zionist. Both Zionists, discussing the degree to which both types are evident through Israeli history has been very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

And so it goes on , seems they are managing a 50 / 50 death toll of Hamas / civillians ... How do they tell is it the green toories ?.

On the bright side it will helps keep people who are employed in the manufacture of bullets / bombs / white phosforous etc in a job , most probably in the U.S or here in the U.K .

Personally I wont be buying my sweet potatoes from Israel anymore .

I dont care for any fanatics well apart from non violent nice ones who are fanatical about some hobbie or other and not thier version of some supposed afterlife .

Well yuns a grain mair drivel , might be going to the middle east at the end of the month well quater to be exact i hoop der moderate enough craters aroond dair .,

Allah akbar or glebbies jannie which would be the best greeting ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, well, back again. Apologies for not getting back on Friday - I was just about to post when a visitor arrived, then had a busy weekend. That's another few score Palestinians won't be able to read my golden words.

 

Where's the right of return for the cavemen? Where are the cavemen demanding it? I'm not bothered about who was there *first*, just about who had been living there for centuries when the Zionists arrived and started driving them out.

 

The "chauvinistic arrogance" I mentioned is probably less a Jewish or Zionist problem than an Abrahamic problem - the Jews have us, the "Goyim", to regard as inferior for not being Jewish; the Christians have the "heathen" who fail to recognise the truth of Christianity; the Muslims have the "infidel" who must be taught the truth of Mohammed's teachings. If anyone's watching "Around the World in Eighty Faiths" on telly, they'll recognise the yawning chasm between the Abrahamic attitude to "unbelievers" and that shown by the Buddhist girls shown last week happily making an offering to a Brahmin god (to inspire them to get good exam results!) because they respect all faiths. My guess would be that the contrast arises because if you only recognise one god, you have a vested interest in establishing that yours is *the* god, whereas if you recognise (for want of a better phrase) the "godly impulse", the impulse towards unity and co-operation, you are more open to seeing the same inspiration in others' beliefs.

 

Look at China (pre-communist, of course, though they are slowly re-adopting some of their traditional beliefs). For centuries, they cheerfully kept to a mixture of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism. None of these was so "right" that its devotees felt it necessary to kill those who believed differently - most people simply took it in the same spirit as those girls on TV and cheerfully accepted the truths and benefits of all the faiths. By contrast, the Abrahamic tradition more resembles left-wing politics in our country - quite ready to declare war on someone who was your brother last week, never mind the opposition. Judaism has Orthodox and Reform, Christianity has Protestant and Catholic, Islam has Sunni and Sh'ia - and all have sub-sects, sub-sub-sects ... - all quite happy to declare the "unbeliever" to be somehow less than human, and thus safe to kill without having to worry too much about what our "god of love" said about "Thou shalt not kill".

 

As to finding an "unbiased citation" for my comment, 'tis difficult since that was merely one remembered detail out of all the stuff I've read over several decades. 'Tis also difficult because it would require prior agreement over what constitutes "unbiased" ... what? a Jewish author? Obviously a crypto-Zionist! An Islamic source? Obviously antisemitic! (And very nice to see Shetlinkers keeping that word under control. A truly antisemitic solution to the Middle East's problems would involve killing off all Jews and all Arabs. Generally this is not quite what the abuser of that word means!)

 

The involvement of Britain in that dreadful "solution" to the Palestinian strike is undeniable but nonetheless an indicator of the way the situation has been going ever since. I was intrigued recently, not altogether off that topic, to come across a claim that Leopold Amery, the author of the Balfour Declaration, was "secretly" Jewish. Does that sound anti-Jewish? The article appeared in the Jerusalem Post, a decade ago today.

 

I harbour too a deep suspicion that an awful lot of modern politics is driven by (again for want of a better phrase) "undercover Jews" in this way. Why would "Christian" America (approx 3% Jewish) or the UK (less than 1%) support Israel as intensively as they always seem to? It isn't "democracy" - Hamas were democratically elected. And it does not escape the attention of anyone who cares to look that the vast bulk of media and broadcasting across the Western world lies in Jewish hands to an extent which appears almost unbelievable when compared with the percentage of Jews in the populations of those countries. This undoubtedly explains why the coverage of the grim business in the Middle East is invariably pro-Israel, with the Palestinian viewpoint seldom even mentioned.

 

That point goes further, too. Okay, you'll probably dismiss me quoting Radio Islam as me using an "anti-Jewish" source - in fact, I use it as somewhere to find stuff to investigate. On that site, however, I found an astonishing claim. I'm sure we all remember the "Danish cartoons" which caused such a predictable reaction across the Islamic world. And it appears that the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten (JP), the person who commissioned and published those offensive cartoons, was ... Flemming Rose, a Zionist friend of the Jewish/US neocon extremist Daniel Pipes.

 

Wow, what cultural sensitivity! Even a total atheist could have predicted the sort of response which followed the publication of those cartoons, yet this "cultural editor" seems to have felt that stirring up hatred between Islam and Europe was okay. Cui bono? (If you didn't do Latin, "To whom the benefit?") How many such activities go on quietly in the background of international politics? We'll probably never know, especially if we never look outside the mainstream media.

 

I'm not going to try to make any points about "rich Jews" controlling all the money, either - although again they are disproportionately represented. It was, after all, our own "good Christian gentlemen" who reasoned that, since usury (charging interest) was sinful for Christians (as it was also for Jews, of course), we should let/encourage the Jews to defile themselves with it, thereby in effect making them rich, if "spiritually defiled" by the usury. It's also worth noting that Islam still (in my view, quite rightly) adheres to this - Islamic banks do not give or charge interest.

 

Gibber, you seem to approve of the "mechanisms in place to retain the Jewish demographic, mechanisms required to ensure a Jewish homeland that ensures a sovereign state where Jews can live without being murdered". I say again, why should there be a "Jewish homeland" when there is no (no other) "Christian homeland" or "Muslim homeland"? The "Christian and Muslim countries" are not "homelands", they're just countries which have ended up with Christian or Muslim majorities - I don't, btw, want to play down at all the intolerance shown by those majorities, to Jews, blacks, communists ... you name it.

 

The Jewish people, had they elected to make Israel a non-exclusive democratic country rather than an exclusive Jewish one, might have achieved in their project a country where Jews were "merely" a majority, but where others were welcome. Instead, they have chosen to go for an exclusively Jewish country where non-Jews are second class citizens. That's just religious apartheid. Oh, and if you truly believe that Allah, rather than the iron fist of Jehovah, controls Gaza, there really isn't anything I can say. You don't need to be *in* the place to control it.

 

Another thing nobody seems to ask - why do Jews want that particular "homeland"? After all, Abraham, if we could ask him, would probably describe himself as a Sumerian (Sumeria was southern Mesopotamia (Iraq)), since that's where the Hebrew culture seems to have started, and they weren't native to there - remember that, fairly recently, archaeologists claimed to have found the site of the Garden of Eden, north of there towards Turkey. The "Wandering Jew" has been nomadic for a very long time.

 

As to my "bizarre utilitarian system of morality" (less a morality than a rough rule of thumb to work out who's behaving worse) - if Israel had been taking out Germans since WWII, the six million would count in that. I did say "the parties in any conflict", not "the sum total over history". It was not Palestinians, or Muslims, who killed Jews in Germany; they are just the unfortunate recipients of what Israel is doing in their area, in a separate conflict. The figure of six million seems to have been revised somewhat in recent years, anyhow, though not very publicly; I'm still waiting for history's final verdict on that one: with fulltime historians having trouble finding definitive evidence, it isn't likely to come quickly.

 

If targeted assassinations are "ineffectual" against Hamas, then they're exactly as effective as the current slaughter, surely, and likely to alienate a lot less support than killing hundreds of civilians. Oh, and I'm sorry if my comment on the Lebanese guys came across as my seeming to accept them as "some chaps down the pub I am vaguely acquainted with" - not at all my intention. It's the traitorous interwebz failing to transmit my tone of sheer exasperation, which is what it actually was. To me, their attitude looks much the same as kids who, seeing a fight going on, chuck things at the fighters to keep it going - as I did say, they aren't helping anyone. Nor, come to that, is Israel - there has been quite a bit more unfavourable comment this time around than for their previous activities. They may yet regret this.

 

I'm going to have to bow out of this thread before long (until the next time?). It's getting so that every time I drop in on Shetlink I feel I have to try to justify all sorts of partial understandings of my previous comments. Actually, as EM said, it is the current crew (and previous extremists) which offends me most, although I still have problems with an administration which routinely denies rights to non-Jews. Sure, if we were in Israel, we would be allowed to start and run a political party which supported the extension of rights to Muslims and Christians. However, when it came to electing the next Knesset, Israeli law would forbid us from putting forward any candidates. Every time, democracy, the rights of non-Jews, come second to the "Jewish homeland" - which aims at (with thanks to paulb for reminding us of the Vatican!) the *second* religious "homeland".

 

Ultimately, I think that possibly the truest comment on the whole Middle Eastern question was made almost incidentally on the comment pages of The Register by their "moderatrix" Sarah Bee, who raised a wry smile from me on Friday with her response to an "Anonymous Coward" (AC) ...

 

To be fair, AC, it has been proven that no one can ever say anything about conflict in the Middle East without being bitchslapped by someone for some perceived indelicate statement or careless turn of phrase. It's quite literally impossible.

Y'know, I think she's quite literally right. And ah, dear Albert. Sharp feller - I seem to recall he turned down the job offer of Prime Minister of Israel, too.

 

I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish State. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish State, with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain ...

Cheers, Albert. I don't think it's patronising to call your attitude relaxed or agreeable, not least 'cos I share it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extremist is just another one of humanitys middle names and it dont take that much to get it out of us and them that push our buttons know it.

Some can be driven so bats*it crazy by religion that they will kill over a cartoon or some over a misguided ideal or a poxy flag or some will be given the idea that they are seperate as a race from all others and filled with the idea that they must fight to protect just that for fear that the rest will try to destroy them otherwise.

 

It's a club and you're not in it.

It's not pure zionist, even most of the extreme ones are nowt more than victims of it, though I suspect not all, as is the case with such entitys like the CFR, club of rome etc, etc, etc the most involved might think that it's for the greater good; not counting the evil pet puppets like bush, the pope etc or their muppets like prince William or Obama etc.

The likes of the Rothschilds and rockerfellers and their ilk have networked humanity into their stinky pyramid scheme for a long time with ease; likely back to Nimrod. I think you have to be David Ike to go much beyond that.

Short of it is, we have to rise beyond it as a species or not at all.

It was always a choice.

 

Or perhaps 2012 will sort it out for us (which if Einstein had gone into politics instead of maths, we might have some kind of clue about) :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not bothered about who was there *first*, just about who had been living there for centuries when the Zionists arrived

 

That doesn’t make sense for your argument. So if Israel exists for another couple of hundred years it makes them somehow in the right? They just have to run out the clock and all Palestinian interests/history of the area are void, just like you regard Israel’s now.

 

As to finding an "unbiased citation" for my comment, 'tis difficult since that was merely one remembered detail out of all the stuff I've read over several decades.

 

It may not be correct then.

 

Obviously antisemitic! (And very nice to see Shetlinkers keeping that word under control. A truly antisemitic solution to the Middle East's problems would involve killing off all Jews and all Arabs.

 

I imagine anybody else reading this knew what I meant. This word's use is almost entirely in regards to hating Jews. If you want the term to apply in its purest etymological sense then do so. Don’t be surprised if this adds to your confusion.

 

"secretly" Jewish. Does that sound anti-Jewish?

 

As in secret Jewish conspiracy? Probably, lets see...

 

I harbour too a deep suspicion that an awful lot of modern politics is driven by (again for want of a better phrase) "undercover Jews" in this way. Why would "Christian" America (approx 3% Jewish) or the UK (less than 1%) support Israel as intensively as they always seem to? It isn't "democracy" - Hamas were democratically elected. And it does not escape the attention of anyone who cares to look that the vast bulk of media and broadcasting across the Western world lies in Jewish hands to an extent which appears almost unbelievable when compared with the percentage of Jews in the populations of those countries. This undoubtedly explains why the coverage of the grim business in the Middle East is invariably pro-Israel, with the Palestinian viewpoint seldom even mentioned.

 

...yes.

 

Lets skip on a bit

 

I'm not going to try to make any points about "rich Jews" controlling all the money, either

 

phew...

 

- although again they are disproportionately represented.

 

...ahh

 

It was, after all, our own "good Christian gentlemen" who reasoned that, since usury (charging interest) was sinful for Christians (as it was also for Jews, of course), we should let/encourage the Jews to defile themselves with it.

 

Yes Jews were denied some occupations, sometimes they are criticised for doing a good job of the occupations they were permitted to undertake.

 

Gibber, you seem to approve of the "mechanisms in place to retain the Jewish demographic, mechanisms required to ensure a Jewish homeland that ensures a sovereign state where Jews can live without being murdered". I say again, why should there be a "Jewish homeland"

 

Then what you are actually saying is why should there be Jews? I can’t really add much more to this than I said already.

 

The Jewish people, had they elected to make Israel a non-exclusive democratic country rather than an exclusive Jewish one,….. where non-Jews are second class citizens.

 

20% Arab population doesn’t make anything exclusively Jewish. Like in many countries including yours minorities often suffer from social disadvantages like poverty or access to education. Artificial mechanisms don’t help, I hate that too but understand why they are there in Israel’s case even though I don’t entirely agree with them.

 

Another thing nobody seems to ask - why do Jews want that particular "homeland"?

 

I already told you.

 

As to my "bizarre utilitarian system of morality" (less a morality than a rough rule of thumb to work out who's behaving worse) - if Israel had been taking out Germans since WWII, the six million would count in that. I did say "the parties in any conflict", not "the sum total over history".

 

You mentioned Israeli history, the Holocaust is a part of that.

 

The figure of six million seems to have been revised somewhat in recent years

 

What holocaust?

 

If targeted assassinations are "ineffectual" against Hamas, then they're exactly as effective as the current slaughter, surely, and likely to alienate a lot less support than killing hundreds of civilians.

 

We’ll have to see if this Gaza operation is effective. Alienating support is a definite possibility.

 

I'm going to have to bow out of this thread before long (until the next time?). It's getting so that every time I drop in on Shetlink I feel I have to try to justify all sorts of partial understandings of my previous comments.

 

You should make your arguments clearer and less wrong then.

 

Bludgeoning your way into this thread with an inaccurate rant about Israel and then ending it by resorting to claims of Jewish conspiracy in politics, Jewish controlled media, alluding to “rich Jews†and revised Holocaust death toll isn’t going to fly.

 

And ah, dear Albert. Sharp feller - I seem to recall he turned down the job offer of Prime Minister of Israel, too.

 

"I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel [to serve as President], and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions. For these reasons alone I should be unsuited to fulfil the duties of that high office, even if advancing age was not making increasing inroads on my strength. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship to the Jewish people has become my strongest human bond, ever since I became fully aware of our precarious situation among the nations of the world."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest their best approach would be to follow droilker's suggestion of trying genuinely to improve the real conditions of the disaffected and bitter people.

That's not really a response to stop Hamas' rocket attacks is it?

I would suggest that it would indeed be the course of action most likely to lead to a long term overall reduction if not cessation.

 

You can still give a suggestion about what a proportional response would be.

Between the biblical alternative recommendations of "an eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek" I prefer to follow the latter. I would suggest the same for others.

 

You have tried to equate most of Zionism with a terrorist element that was active during the establishment of Israel which is now "revered" by Israel's current leadership (and apart from Netanyahu and Livni's dad you haven't pointed out anyone else whose hawkishness can be said to be a result of reverence for terrorists).

The evidence is widespread. Take typical news reports about Livni. It is routine to read statements such as this from the New York Times:

This, combined with impeccable nationalist credentials, made Livni an ideal candidate for ...

The way that the NYT (and other mainstream commentators) consider the status of her Irgun father and mother to be impeccable credentials, is a perfect indication that the average views within Zionism today are, by my standards, extremist.

 

Perhaps you would like to look at Israel's political history and provide a list of leaders and MKs who don't revere the Irgun, for the sake of objectivity.

Why? There are less hawkish figures but the majority view seems to me to be much more extreme.

 

And statistically some of them would have joined up because they liked the uniform, Hitler was nice to his dog etc. This is comparing the less extreme members of the National Socialists with the non-militant liberal Zionists. The comparison doesn't work any more than comparing the majority of Zionism to most of Nazism.

I differ. My point in mentioning that there were and are Nazi apologists who cite such touchy-feely irrelevancies is to make exactly the opposite point. Simply pointing out that there are some liberal views in a movement is unimportant, there always are examples. In the case of Nazism or current Zionism I believe the typical views are well beyond a reasonable threshold for being termed extremist.

 

I understand that there is a wider church in all movements. I think you are concentrating on the militants of the Irgun too much. I don't think that you have managed to show Israel as an extremist state because of these elements in Israel's history.

It is not the history, but rather the fact that the views are current.

 

(perhaps the leaders you talk about disassociating themselves from the Irgun are doing so because they don't revere the Irgun as much as you say).

But they do not disassociate themselves! They try to have it both ways. On the one hand they revere the individuals and movements, but with almost the same breath, decry the extra-state terrorism waged against them as being against the rules.

 

Wouldn't these militant aspects of Palestinian society be evident through its future history like you are arguing has happened in Israel, making it an extremist state also, with some degree of comparison to Nazism?

Perhaps, but that is a separate (linked) debate.

 

You can't say it's an extremist state based on an "aspect(s)" from many years ago. You can say there was an extremist aspect, you can try to argue that this extremist aspect has been passed down to current leadership and you can try to argue it is evident in Israeli policies and actions.

I think that is exactly what I didn't, and did, do respectively. My text is there to check.

 

And even if this aspect is to be found in the current leadership how different is the situation? A stateless, government less people trying to obtain statehood after WWII is not the same as Israel the 60 year old nation.

Again, exactly so. Israel is now the oppressor and the Palestinians now the Jews. Ironic but true. As for the stateless bit, I'll have to deal with that later.

 

Who said:

 

The same man that said this?

Yes indeed. From a public letter Einstein co-authored in 1948. The full text here is well worth reading, especially the comments about Irgun/Stern reactions to the massacres they carried out.

 

Now I think we all agree that Einstein's views should not be given any increased credibility due to his scientific genius nor due to his fame. Rather they are relevant only on their own merits. I think it fair to say that he tends to come across as a fairly civilised chummy character. For him to put his name to a letter which describes the founders and heroes of the current Zionist establishment in such vivid terms should I think be a sobering thought for everyone. If you believe my opinion can be considered a "hate crime" (tough words), do you consider Einstein and his fellow worthies (the letter's co-authors include many impressively civilised minds) to also be guilty of "hate crime"? Their words are stronger than mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just found a link to a useful resource, the "Washington Report on Middle East Affairs", "published by the American Educational Trust (AET), a non-profit foundation incorporated in Washington, DC by retired U.S. foreign service officers.

 

"AET's Foreign Policy Committee has included former U.S. ambassadors, government officials, and members of Congress, including the late Democratic Senator J. William Fulbright, and Republican Senator Charles Percy, both former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents. In general, the Washington Report supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play."

 

They have info on funding for Military Aid and State Aid.

 

Quotes from archive material from 2001 (http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Jan_Feb_2001/0101015.html):

"Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid since World War II"

"the U.S. gives Israel all of its economic aid directly in cash, with no accounting of how the funds are used"

"The only condition the congressional foreign aid bill places on military aid to Israel is that about 75 percent of it has to be spent in the U.S."

 

It is incredible how much money the US gives to Israel. One of the main reasons taxpayer money is given is so that it can be spent lining the pockets of arms dealers.

 

That's democracy for you...

 

This explains the US - Israel relationship:

 

"The U.S. aid relationship with Israel is unlike any other in the world," said Stephen Zunes during a January 26 CPAP presentation. "In sheer volume, the amount is the most generous foreign aid program ever between any two countries," added Zunes, associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.

 

He explored the strategic reasoning behind the aid, asserting that it parallels the "needs of American arms exporters" and the role "Israel could play in advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region."

 

Although Israel is an "advanced, industrialized, technologically sophisticated country," it "receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual [Gross Domestic Product] per capita of several Arab states." Approximately a third of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget goes to Israel, "even though Israel comprises just…one-thousandth of the world's total population, and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes."

 

U.S. government officials argue that this money is necessary for "moral" reasons-some even say that Israel is a "democracy battling for its very survival." If that were the real reason, however, aid should have been highest during Israel's early years, and would have declined as Israel grew stronger. Yet "the pattern…has been just the opposite."

 

The U.S. supports Israel's dominance so it can serve as a surrogate for American interests in this vital strategic region. Israel has been a testing ground for U.S. made weaponry, has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. [could] not send arms to directly,…Iike South Africa, like the Contras, Guatemala under the military junta, [and] Iran." Zunes cited an Israeli analyst who said: "'It's like Israel has just become another federal agency when it's convenient to use and you want something done quietly."

 

Or not so quietly...

 

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3098

 

I've no doubt Gibber will go through this lot and try to justify the massacre, or claim bias or whatnot, but there's no justifying an atrocity like the one going on just now. Have a read of the poster in the Save the Children window next time you're passing, folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_17.shtml

 

From the website of "Jewish voice for peace":

 

"Israel cannot build a society based on the principles of democracy, human rights, and compliance with international law while brutally occupying another people and their land. The United States is currently paying for that occupation with its annual aid. That's why Jewish Voice for Peace urges the U.S. government to suspend military aid to Israel until Israel ends its 37-year occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Predicting a claim of bias isn’t going to stop me doing so if I think there are grounds.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs

 

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has been characterized by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America as "virulently anti-Israel,"[3] as "bitterly anti-Zionist" and "the most conspiratorially-minded of the anti-Israel forces" by the Middle East Quarterly,[4] as "a journal known for its strong anti-Israel bias" by Honest Reporting,[5] and as "an anti-Israel publication that frequently serves as an apologist for Muslim American groups advocating anti-Semitism and support for terrorism" by the Anti-Defamation League.[6] Canada's National Post has also described the magazine as "anti-Israel,"[7] the Jewish Virtual Library has stated that the "WRMEA publishes many articles that are considered to be anti-Israel and anti-Zionist",[8] the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles notes that critics view it as "guilty of frequent factual distortions" and "an unrelenting polemic against Israel",[2] and Jonathan Tobin, executive editor of The Jewish Exponent has described the publication as "the guidebook to the Arabist lobby in the United States" that "specializes in defaming Israel."[9]

 

No doubt petergear will claim bias of the Washington Report’s critics and try to justify Hamas’ genocidal intent.

 

Thanks for the savethechildren tip and the link to christianaid, now I can start caring for the civilians killed in Gaza.

 

If you want you can address anything I’ve posted you take issue with since the Gaza conflict started. I’m assuming you can’t as you haven’t (including my last response to your posts) so feel free to turn the thread into ‘my link’s better than yours’, perhaps someone other than me will take you up on it, or provide their own “internet research†in support. Making you feel both factually correct and a humanitarian.

 

What would be a proportionate Israeli response? Look back through the thread to see what other people have suggested and then try to think of something and argue for it. How about then looking for something on the internet in specific support of your argument? Rather than just taking your own general out of focus anti-Israel, anti-US, job lot of positions that you think is a part of the make up a left wing liberal attitude, and posting op-ed links in support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m assuming you can’t as you haven’t (including my last response to your posts)

 

No Gibber, I chose no to. I don't enjoy arguments quite as you seem to, and quite frankly there are many other people I'd much rather spend my day conversing with.

 

Besides, I felt anyone reading each of our posts, would make up their own minds about it without need for further input.

 

How about then looking for something on the internet in specific support of your argument? Rather than just taking your own general out of focus anti-Israel, anti-US, job lot of positions that you think is a part of the make up a left wing liberal attitude, and posting op-ed links in support.

 

I am not anti-US, I am anti the US arms trade, anti-corruption, and I'm not much of a fan of horrific brutality either, come to that. And regards the rest of your reply, :!: "foll-dee-rol"...! :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be a proportionate Israeli response?

 

Well, I suppose a truly proportionate response would be for Israelis to get hold of some antiquated not-very-accurate missiles and send them into Gaza from Sderot or wherever.

 

Sorry if this sounds like I am an apologist for Hamas - I am not - but how many people have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza? As far as I can see it is around 20 people over 8 years or so. 2.5 people per year or almost 0.05 deaths per week. Considering that over 900 people have been killed in Gaza in little more than a fortnight (lets say something like 300 per week) the Israeli response is 6,240 times as effective at killing Palestinians. Hardly proportionate.

 

But why did Israel feel that military action was necessary? Surely a politically negotiated ceasefire would have been a better option for all concerned? Let's not forget that there was a ceasefire of sorts agreed back in June 2008, when Hamas agreed to stop firing rockets if Israel would ease the blockade on Gaza. This fell apart in November after Israel conducted a raid in Gaza and killed 6 Hamas militants. The rocket attacks began again in earnest. Some sources suggest that Hamas were willing to return to the ceasefire at a meeting in Cairo on December 14, so why did Israel commence military action? Would it be too cynical to suggest that upcoming elections in Israel have a bearing on this? Polls show that 80 or 90% of Israelis support military action - it is a vote-winner.

 

Regardless of whether or not the operation is justified, has it been effective? Rockets are still being sent into Israel after almost 3 weeks of intensive bombing and the best efforts of the IDF on the ground to prevent them. International condemnation of Israel has resulted. Moderate Palestinians are now more likely to support Hamas. A new generation of orphans prepared to consider a career as suicide bombers has been created in Gaza. Al Quaeda recruiters and other Jihadist organisations worldwide are rubbing their hands together in glee. Anti-semitism is being fuelled throughout europe and probably beyond. The prospect of a sustainable peace in the middle east is being pushed further and further into the future. Israel is less secure rather than safer because of this invasion.

What a crazy mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...