Demonizing Israel is bad for the Palestinians

[shira]

Demonizing Israel is bad for the Palestinians
By MUDAR ZAHRAN
08/01/2010 05:53

The negative focus on Israel by the global media has harmed the Palestinians’ interests for decades.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the international media have been unhesitant in criticizing the Jewish state on almost everything. This has evolved into a media culture by itself, to the point that many internationally renowned newspapers would have a button labelled “Israel” or “Israeli-Arab conflict” on their Web sites including very little positive content about Israel. Media hostility toward Israel has been mainly focused on its military operations and, in more quiet times, on the living conditions of the Palestinians in Israel.

Amazingly enough, the international media, and particularly the Western ones, pay very little attention to the conditions of the Palestinians living in Arab countries, despite the extreme oppression they have been enduring for decades in most Arab countries.


These Palestinians do not have someone to speak for them in the global media, possibly because a news story about countries other than Israel is less interesting or “sexy” by media standards. This tendency to blame Israel for everything has lead to the development of numerous myths about the situation of the Palestinian there that have provided an excuse to purposely ignore and compromise the human rights of the Palestinian in many Arab countries.

THE EXAMPLES for that are plentiful and sometimes cross the line into tragic comedy. While the world is crying over the Israel-imposed blockade on Gaza, the media, for some unknown reason, choose to deliberately ignore the conditions of the Palestinians living in camps in Lebanon.

more...
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=183252

[depakid]

1. Israel through its own actions and status as an apartheid nation has demonized itself

quite effectively.

[Clovis Sangrail]

2. but but but people are being MEAN to Israel.... /nt

[shira]

3. How does demonizing Israel help Palestinians suffering under Hamas/Fatah, or in Lebanon, Syria, etc?

It certainly helps Hamas and Fatah in their deligitimization efforts, as well as taking the focus off their crimes against Palestinians by having everyone "look over there" to Israel.

But how does demonization vs. Israel help Palestinians? :shrug:

[Clovis Sangrail]

4. haven't you noticed?

being anti Israeli means you're pro Palestinian
and vice versa

:sarcasm:

on a more serious note:
I'd guess that Israel gets more attention in the US media because Israel is *supposed* to be our great ally and a regional beacon of democracy.
They also probably get more attention because they are, as a govt., actively working to displace Palestinians more so than any other govt.

In general -I don't care what the Israelis do with or to the Palestinians ... as long as we in the US aren't financing it.
It seems to me they've become more of a liability than an asset so the alliance (and our funding of them) should end.
We should let Israel do whatever they want and then let them suffer the consequences of their actions.

If they can get along with their neighbours ... great.
If they can't ... c'est la vie.

[shira]

7. To most, being pro-Palestinian means to only be anti-Israel.

Most who label themselves "pro-Palestinian" couldn't give a rat's ass about Palestinian life under Hamas, Fatah, or in Lebanon and Syria - where Palestinians lack the most basic human rights and are killed in far greater numbers than by Israelis. If Israel can't be blamed, why pretend to care for Palestinians...

[Clovis Sangrail]

10. got it

"Israel's not a problem - move along"

great
..now let's stop buying their bullets for them and let them reap what they've sown.

It'll be tough at first ... that much more instability in the ME will make oil prices spike ... but that might be the impetus needed for us to switch to other energy sources and drop our oil consumption enough that the ME becomes insignificant.

[shira]

11. It's not that easy to just drop Israel....

The West doesn't really want the religious crazies from Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaida, etc.. taking over the neighborhood if at all possible. Leaving Israel out of it, the West would rather deal with the governments in power of Egypt, Jordan, S.Arabia, etc.. than the aforementioned nutballs who'd salivate at taking over from the more "moderate" regimes. Oil's a big part of it but also just across from the Mediterranean is Europe and they'd rather have a more 'stabilized' Middle East than not. Israel, believe it or not, helps a great deal to prevent the nutballs from running the asylum.

But getting back on track with the OP, do you disagree and think that demonizing Israel actually helps Palestinians? :shrug:

[Chulanowa]

14. Special pleading

Appeal to Fear, Slippery Slope, False Dilemma, Argument From Adverse Consequences. Red Herring. Appeal to Popularity, False Dilemma. Appeal to fear, Bullshit.

Red Herring :shrug:

[Clovis Sangrail]

16. of course not

why should anybody think that "demonizing" an oppressor would help the oppressed ??

that's just crazy talk

:rofl:

[shira]

21. Irrational and bigoted demonization of Israel does nothing to help Palestinians.

Just ask Palestinians who are denied basic human rights in Gaza or Lebanon. As well as those losing their citizenship in Jordan. Or Palestinians ethnically cleansed from Kuwait. Israel's "organ harvesting" somehow merits more attention than all those things combined.

An obsessive focus on Israel's imaginary or exaggerated actions does little more than delegitimize. It does nothing to address the biggest problems Palestinians continue to face.

[Chulanowa]

27. Well, regarding Kuwait...

I actually mention the treatment of Palestinians in Kuwait fairly frequently, simply because despite being one of the most media-covered wars in Americna history, it still ranks as one that most people know very little about.

The expulsion of the Palestinians was reported, Shira. The trouble was, it was reported positively because they were Palestinians.

You seem to have a clear memory of Saddam linking the Gulf War with the Palestinian situation. I presume you remember Yassir Arafat welcoming Saddam as an Arabist hero, too. Since president Bush was asserting that Saddam was "magnitudes worse than Hitler" and Arafat was supporting the guy, and Israel was playing this up to the max... what then did that say about the Palestinian people? The American public has pretty much been exposed to only one side of the Israel / Palestine conflict for several generations, and as a result, the general opinion that Palestinians are by nature bad people is pretty fixed in the culture.

So when the public is told that the Kuwaiti Palestinians are all terrible people who "deserved it," not many questions were raised. It was taken as a given that Kuwait was acting for "security." No mention was made of the fact that the Palestinians of Kuwait featured prominently in the resistance against Iraq. There was certainly no mention of the economic reasons for doing this (it was kind of the Kuwaiti version of union-busting; enslaved Filipinos work for less money.) And as usual, the Bedouin expulsion got no mention at all - if the Palestinians are the Native Americans of the middle east, then the Bedouin have to be the Mexicans, as far as media concern for them goes.

I think what you're getting at - that the plight of Palestinians elsewhere isn't getting covered thoroughly - is a valid argument. That you seem to use it to give a free pass to Israel isn't valid, but the argument itself is sound. The Palestinians don't get a fair shake in the media.

Now, here's the questions you don't want to know the answer to; WHY don't they get a fair shake? WHY, in the case of the Palestinians, are the victims always to blame? WHY are the Palestinians always regarded as unsympathetic figures? WHY are they always "the enemy"?

You talk a lot about demonization of Israel. When I see "Jud Süß" played on standard cable as often as I see "True Lies" I'll think you have a decent argument.

[shira]

31. At least you agree Palestinians outside of Israel don't get a fair shake...

But you didn't answer 'why'.

C'mon, give it your best shot and then I'll give you mine.

[Chulanowa]

34. Because of an overwhelming pro-Israel bias in the US media and politics

I've never seen a pro-Palestinian version of this ad that I happened across when I picked up a U.S. News in the employee lounge at work the other day.
I've never seen a pro-Palestinian, and especially never seen an anti-Israel version of Charles Krauthammer.
I've never seen a sitting US Politician, or one seeking office, that has anything nice to say about Palestinians. Those who find an opinion while out of office - like Jimmy Carter - are treated as Hitler Lite. Conversely, those who blame everything solely on the Palestinians - such as Bill Clinton - suffer no such rhetorical assaults.
While I don't see too many portrayals of Israelis in popular media, I've only ever seen Palestinians portrayed as monsters.
On the news, I frequently see Israeli contributors during the conflicts, and all the footage I see is Israeli military footage. the non-Israeli side of the situation is generally represented by one of the anchors.
Speaking of the news, Helen Thomas isn't the first journalist to be served a shit sandwich for expressing even mild pro-Palestinian / anti-Israel sentiment. They tend to get swept off the stage like a bad act at the Apollo... and yet, Chucky manages to keep his syndication without a peep of protest.

The answer to "why" is because the American people are only ever exposed t one side of the story. if the other side is presented, it is immediately attacked as hate, as antisemitism, and anyone who thinks about it is, to use your term, "worthy of David Duke or pat Buchanan."

Simply put, the pro-Israeli side has had longer to get established in the US media and has more resources on its side. And it has put quite a lot of effort to making sure that its side of the story remains the only side of the story.

So we end up with a situation where Kuwait throwing out thirty thousand people (and possibly killing several thousand of them) is seen as a positive thing. Because they're Palestinians.

Which is why it looks very, very strange when you try to look concerned about how Palestinians are represented, Shira. I really can't for a moment swallow that you are actually honest in your concern, especially seeing as how we are on a thread that you started with an article that plainly feigns concern for the palestinians as a measure to deflect attention from and excuse Israel for its affronts to the Palestinians.

[shira]

37. Come on now - Palestinian suffering under Arab leadership barely merits headlines outside the USA

The western foreign press, NGO's, and the UN are all over Israeli fake passports and organ harvesting more than Palestinians oppressed by Kuwait, Lebanon, Gaza, and Jordan combined. It's not just the USA. What accounts for this?

Which is why it looks very, very strange when you try to look concerned about how Palestinians are represented, Shira. I really can't for a moment swallow that you are actually honest in your concern, especially seeing as how we are on a thread that you started with an article that plainly feigns concern for the palestinians as a measure to deflect attention from and excuse Israel for its affronts to the Palestinians.

You don't get it.

The OP points out the hypocrisy of the vast majority of so-called pro-Palestinians who can't be bothered to expend a tenth of the energy they use venting their spleens on Israel into condemning the likes of Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan or Gaza. If so-called pro-Palestinians are at all concerned about Palestinian suffering, it's odd they're so silent - comparatively speaking - about Palestinian suffering in Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan and Gaza under Arab leadership. Why aren't they fighting for Palestinian basic rights in Lebanon, or the loss of their Jordanian citizenship, or basic rights under Hamas in Gaza?

What's the answer to that question?

Are they ignorant, and if so, why? This isn't just happening in the USA.

Put simply, it's extremely difficult to take irrational criticism of Israel seriously from people who only pretend to care about Palestinian human rights. They pretend to care about Palestinian rights only when it appears Israel is violating them. Anyone else, they could give a shit. It's obvious. Very much like Pat Buchanon or David Duke.

[Chulanowa]

50. Again, the OP points out nothing

It posits that "pro-Palestinians are hypocritical" but the material in the article itself covers absolutely none of that, and is instead your usual diet of justification and apologetics for Israel's screwups.

And... Well, let's be fair here, Israel faking (more accurately; stealing) British passports to murder someone in Yemen is a big deal. That's the kind of thing that can lead to embassies being closed and a sudden spread of ice on the diplomatic waters. If the US or Pakistan or Angola faked French or Finnish or Chinese passports to murder a guy in Brazil or Australia or Andorra, it would still be a big deal. It's the action itself that is the news, not who perpetrated it.

As for the organ harvesting... Blood libel, plain and simple :shrug: The only "credible" source that seems to have picked it up was the Guardian, and they retracted and apologized for it. I've seen it perpetuated in a few places that are real nutbins, but nowhere that I would take serious to any degree.

"The OP points out the hypocrisy of the vast majority of so-called pro-Palestinians who can't be bothered to expend a tenth of the energy they use venting their spleens on Israel into condemning the likes of Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan or Gaza."

Actually, as I pointed out, it does no such thing. It's simply a vehicle to whine and justify Israel's bad behavior by pretending something Jordan did i nthe 70's justifies what Israel does today.

Which is a part of a very crucial point you are not getting, Shira.
Black September happened in 1970.
The Hama Massacre happened in 1982
The Kuwaiti (and Saudi) expulsion of Palestinians was in 1991.
While tragic and often bloody, these events were also singular.

The focus on Israel comes partially (perhaps primarily) from the fact that it is both current and ongoing.

Now, a fair point could be made for putting some focus on Lebanon; their mistreatment of the Palestinian refugees there is also current and ongoing. While I'm certain you feel that the lack of coverage of this is because Everyone Is Antisemitic™, my feeling is that it's actually a little more... complicated. You see, as gun-shy as western media is about criticizing anything related to the Jewish people, they are positively terrified of any critical piece against Christians. And the primary reason that the Lebanese government has not extended rights to the Palestinians is because most of the Palestinian refugees are Sunni Muslims, while the Lebanese government is marginally dominated by Shia Muslims, with a disproportionate influence (Relative to population) from the Maronite community. And it is the Maronites most opposed to letting the Palestinians gain Lebanese citizenship, because it might upset the balance of power. The Druze minority seem to be siding with the Maronites on this, while the Muslim politicians are trying to extend citizenship. This is greatly illustrated by the fact that in the 60's, tens of thousands of Christian Palestinian refugees were granted citizenship to Lebanon... but no Muslims, and further by the fact that when about 50,000 Muslim Palestinians were given Lebanese citizenship, the Christians of Lebanon had such an uproar that the government was basically forces to grant Lebanese citizenship to all Christian Palestinians. 350,000 Palestinians remain stateless in Lebanon, almost all of them Muslim.

Yeah, can you see a NYT or BBC headline pointing out that the Christians of Lebanon are the primary cause of suffering for the Lebanese Palestinians? As I'm sure you'd love to point out, the Christian Falangists barely got a peep over Sabra and Shatila. Again I doubt this is because of some beady-eyed anti-Jewish conspiracy in the media, rather than a mortal terror of ever portraying Christians i na negative light. Hell, most Western media sources can't seem to pull their foot out of their mouth to point out that young-earth creationists are batshit stupid, you think they're going to lay the blame for something like this on our, ahem, "Christian allies"?

"or basic rights under Hamas in Gaza?"

Shira, you can't oppose Hamas while you support the embargo on Gaza. Honestly, it's counter-intuitive. Did the sanctions on Iraq loosen Saddam's hold on power and help free the Iraqis? Have the North Koreans tasted freedom from the embargoes and sanctions on their nation? Fuck, has Cuba seen any sort of democratic revolution since 1953? In every case, economic isolation has resulted in the "Bad Guy" gaining even more power over the population. Pressing for the end of the Israeli blockade of Gaza is a necessary step to getting the Gazans out from under the thumb of a militant Hamas.

It stuff like your contradictory position here that puts lie to your own false concern for Palestinians, Shira. You can't have a blockade and human rights. They simply don't fucking go together. They never have, in any scenario, with any people, in any nation, under any government, EVER. You're going to have to pick one or the other.

What's the answer to that question?

As I pointed out above, Israel's offenses are both current and ongoing. There's also another very crucial point.

Money.

People in the United States do not mail their taxes to Kuwait for the Kuwaitis to use to kill Palestinians. Syrian charities do not operate in Britain and France, collecting funds to help purge Palestinians from their homes to make way for colonists in the name of "Greater Syria." Military hardware is not granted, free of charge, to the government of Jordan, to be turned on UN observation posts, Palestinian hospitals, and residential areas. Lebanese organizations do not have American offices that fill our editorial pages and political magazines with full-page spreads telling us of how the dastardly genocidal Palestinians are seeking to push Lebanon into the sea and establish a terrorist caliphate, and that Lebanon needs us to press our politicians to use their capital to defend the Cedar Republic.

That's all Israel. People are concerned as to what their capital - political, donated, and taxed - is going towards. I'm sure you've never noticed, but this has generated a large current of unhappiness at Saudi Arabia, as well; they're not persecuting Palestinians, but certainly are persecuting their own people and they are doing it with US money.

"Put simply, it's extremely difficult to take irrational criticism of Israel seriously from people who only pretend to care about Palestinian human rights. They pretend to care about Palestinian rights only when it appears Israel is violating them. Anyone else, they could give a shit. It's obvious. Very much like Pat Buchanon or David Duke. "

Psychologists call this "projection." See, Shira... It's very clear that you do not actually have a lick of concern for Palestinians. The ONLY times I have ever seen you express "concern" for them is when you're trying to deflect or excuse Israel's wrongdoing by pointing out "But someone else did it too!"

Take together your clear belief that all criticism of Israel is "irrational," mix in your own denialism and racism (both towards Arabs and Jews) and your sudden and newfound "concern" for the Palestinians, Shira, and you'll see why I take you about as seriously as, well, as I take David Duke. or David Irving, who's arguments you ad lib so often.

[shira]

54. Lebanon's crimes vs. Palestinians have been ongoing, as have Hamas' crimes against Palestinians

As have Fatah's crimes against Palestinians in the WB, where there has been no embargo.

Refugees have been penned up in ghettos lacking basic human rights for over 60 years now in what has to be the greatest ongoing abomination against Palestinians - which you actually support. Recall once again the Build-Your-Own-Home program which the UN shut down in the 1970's that would have placed refugees in their own homes and taken them out of the camps. For all your bitching and moaning about the Gaza ghetto, it's hypocritical to the extreme that you support keeping hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and their descendants penned up in squalor, unable to make lives for themselves and their children in their own homes. It's no surprise the PLO and other hardline Arab governments wish to use these Palestinians as pawns, and that UNRWA needs an excuse to keep their multi-billion dollar scheme going on in perpetuity, but for Palestinians' most dedicated Western advocates of Human Rights to support this or at best be indifferent to it? Un-Fucking-Believable.

The fact is that those who pretend to be the most concerned about Palestinian human rights have almost nothing to say - or are actual apologists - for these ongoing crimes against Palestinians.

At the very best they focus maybe 95% of their energy on Israel and 5% on all other Arab governments combined, but that's being very generous. It's not just the media but also NGO's, the UN, as well as people like yourself who feel you can't oppose Hamas no matter what they do to Palestinians. Really, that says it all. You've made the case for me once again. And that case is, if it's not Israel that appears to be violating the rights of anyone on this planet, it's not as big a deal and you'll make excuses as an apologist for ongoing Palestinian suffering.

[Chulanowa]

13. Straw man

Straw man, ad hominem - two wrongs make a right, bullshit. Straw Man.

[polly7]

24. No, being Pro-Palestinian means being pro human rights.

Only in your mind is it anti-Israel. The atrocities carried out in Israel's name are those of the Gov't, not ordinary Israeli's who btw consist of many who oppose those actions as much as many in the world do. I gather you believe they're also anti-Israel.

[shira]

67. Why are pro-Palestinians indifferent to HR violations against Pal'ns committed by Arab govt's? N/T

[Dick Dastardly]

17. Do you mean how Israel displaced the 44,000 Palestinians in E Jerusalem in 1967 that now number

about 225,000. How about the 650,000 Palestinians in the W Bank in 67 that now number over 2.5 million. Or maybe the 350,000 Palestinians from Gaza in 67 who now number about 1.4 million. Yes we know the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation has swelled but this is because we know the sneaky zionist government has let the Palestinian population multiply so they can displace more of them at one time.


I mean the 25,000 Palestinians Jordan killed in 1970 and the many thousands more who were expelled are in no way comparable to the zionist displacements to come. No way the 400,000 Palestinians Kuwait kicked out after the Gulf war are either.

I am glad to see you have not drunk the zionist government kool-aid.

:sarcasm:

[Chulanowa]

28. 25,000?

Fuck it, man, why not just add another pair of zeroes for a cool two and a half million?

[Chulanowa]

5. Do you ever get tired of the repetitive horseshit, Shira?

You might as well just post articles that do nothing but name the logical fallacies they intend to use. For instance, this article would read like this;

"Ad Hoc. Appeal to Belief. Appeal to Pity. Media hostility toward Israel has been mainly focused on its military operations and, in more quiet times, on the living conditions of the Palestinians in Israel.

Two Wrongs Make a Right.

Appeal to Pity and Circumstantial Ad Hominem and Presupposition (triple fallacy score!) Argumentum ex culo.

Bullshit.

Appeal to Fear. Two Wrongs Make a Right. Special Pleading. Special Pleading again, and Overgeneralization. Guilt by Association. Red Herring.

Misleading Vividness and Presupposition. Special Pleading and Two Wrongs Make a Right. Misleading Vividness. Nonetheless, he has been the undisputed speaker of the Lebanese parliament for a long time. He travels frequently to Europe and criticizes Israel for its (Appeal to Ridicule) on every occasion.

Spotlight Fallacy and Appeal to Pity. Begging the Question. Special Pleading and Two Wrongs Make a Right.

Argumentum ex culo. Not Even Wrong and Bullshit and Special Pleading. Composition and Division.

Ad Hoc. Circumstantial Ad Hominem and Appeal to Ridicule.

Circumstantial Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well.

Correlation Does Not Equal Causation and Red Herring.

The global media must be fair in addressing the Palestinians’ suffering in Arab countries and must stop demonizing Israel. It should start focusing on the broader conditions of the Palestinians in the Middle East region.

There is much to see."

This is pretty typical for op-ed pieces of any subject. The problem is that you, Shira, take them as being factual and informative.

[shira]

6. Hard to make a case against the main argument, isn't it?

Face it - inflating and exaggerating Israel's actions don't help Palestinians.

In the UN, it helps to take the focus off the worst human rights violators around the world - whose countries' human rights violations get very little to no attention. Same goes for Hamas and Fatah, and for that matter Palestinian treatment in countries like Lebanon and Syria. Hundreds of millions suffer while everyone "looks over there" to Israel.

Fun, twisted game - but admittedly the millions of victims around the world pay a huge price for it.

Did you read this "Hypocrisy" article yet?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x329307

I just want you to be honest and admit there's an unhealthy and nasty focus on Israel that does more harm for the victims outside of Israel than anything which might help the situation.

Think you could honestly admit to it? :)

I doubt it, but you never know...

[Tripmann]

8. Shira posts another op-ed that agrees with her. Wasn't expecting that.......

And then links to another thread she started a day and a half ago that nobody even bothered replying to.

Too funny

:rofl:

[shira]

9. If you have anything at all substantive to add, you let us know m'kay?

As for no one seriously replying to that thread, or this one.......speaks for itself, I say.

Truth hurts.

It's very difficult to take seriously those venting their spleens condemning Israel half their lives who can't be bothered to - at the very least - equally criticize Palestinian leadership in the W.Bank or Gaza or Lebanese and Syrian governments for their treatment of Palestinians (which is more harmful to Palestinians than anything Israel has done). The same goes for those from the USA, UK, or France who have higher standards for Israel than their own governments - whose actions by the way are immeasurably worse than Israel. Of course, the claim is that Israel is not as "civilized" as these "real" democracies and therefore does not belong among the more "enlightened" nations.

:eyes:

This irrational outrage du jour by the hate brigade is so transparent.

Again, it does nothing to help Palestinians. But then, that's not really the goal of all this irrational demonization - now is it? :)

[Chulanowa]

15. Ad Hominem

Ad hoc

Ad hoc.

Appeal to Ridicule - Balance fallacy (Bullshit.) Two Wrongs Make a Right - Red Herring. Straw man, bullshit.

:eyes:

Ad hominem, appeal to ridicule.

begging the question.

[Tripmann]

39. Just wondering what kind of person posts links to topics they've started that nobody bothered

to reply to.

Seems a bit strange.

[Chulanowa]

12. There's actually no need to make a case against the main argument

After all, the article itself does not make a case for the argument. Instead, I'm going to try to educate you as to why this is a stupid article, and why you should avoid using these.

First off, what I just brought up; the op-ed piece never actually defends or supports its main argument. Rather, it states the argument at the opening, and the closing, and uses the middle for a lot of rubbish. This is actually a pretty common tactic in the world of opinion pieces and fact-free writing. You'll see it a lot coming from Creationists when they state an argument and then just meander around taking potshots at random things, then close with the argument again.

In this case, the main argument is that "Demonizing (again with that word!) Israel Harms Palestinians." Nowhere in the article is this claim actually supported. Rather, the bulk of the article is apologetics for Israel formed out of logical fallacies. You have the special pleading (Israel deserves to get a pass for its screwups because it's israel), you have Two Wrongs Make a Right (Jordan was mean to its Palestinians, so it's okay if Israel is mean to Palestinians, too), you have Passing the Buck (It's not Israel's fault for fuccking over the Palestinians, it's the media's fault for reporting it!), and of course, the time-honored Ad Hominem (If you disagree with Israel, then you must be an antisemite, and are comparable to Saddam Hussein! :eyes:)

The intent is to get a lot of potshots in, while pretending that the argument is actually being addressed. This is actually a sort of mind trick. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Similarly, so long as the first and last parts of an article mention the argument being made, the reader will tend to think the argument was actually addressed, and will summarily passively accept whatever's in the middle.

Your problem, Shira, is that you start with a series of presuppositions - again, logical fallacies - and then seek out op-ed pieces that share the same presuppositions. You haven't yet explained what this "demonization" is, where it's coming from, when, what it looks like, or who is doing it. We are instead left to take it as a given. You build from there, with the statement that this no doubt vile "demonization" actually harms the palestinians more. Again, we have no evidence of this claim, just you throwing an op-ed out there. And no doubt you have a notion to point out that the writer is a Jordanian-born Palestinian; this is another logical fallacy, appeal from authority.

What's really disgusting is that you keep posting these things, and making arguments that revolve around how Israel should get a free pass for its wrongdoings, and then try to pass it off as concern for Palestinians. It's kind of like if you were making an argument for slavery in South Carolina because slavery in Cuba is more brutal, and that you're deeply concerned for the welfare of the slaves in Cuba because their slavery conditions are worse than the slavery conditions of South Carolina.

Oops, now you've got me sandwiching! Bad Chulanowa, bad, bad!

Now as for why you should stop using them; They do nothing to help you. You've been posting a steady stream of silly, bad, and sometimes outright crazy op-ed pieces, and quite frankly, not a one of them have made the case you seem to want them to Many people, not just myself, have explained to you that these things are simply bad. It's one thing to be factually wrong, at least then it can be argued sanely. But you've given us nothing but opinion and fallacies. I don't know if you think this helps win us over to the Warm And Cuddly side of Israel, but I can tell you that if that's your hope, it's not working, and is in fact directly detrimental to getting that reaction.

[shira]

19. You should stick to the vague logical fallacy arguments and stay away from the specifics.

In this case, the main argument is that "Demonizing (again with that word!) Israel Harms Palestinians." Nowhere in the article is this claim actually supported. Rather, the bulk of the article is apologetics for Israel formed out of logical fallacies. You have the special pleading (Israel deserves to get a pass for its screwups because it's israel), you have Two Wrongs Make a Right (Jordan was mean to its Palestinians, so it's okay if Israel is mean to Palestinians, too), you have Passing the Buck (It's not Israel's fault for fuccking over the Palestinians, it's the media's fault for reporting it!), and of course, the time-honored Ad Hominem (If you disagree with Israel, then you must be an antisemite, and are comparable to Saddam Hussein!

1. Demonization, to put it simply, is irrational criticism. When Israel is criticized for anything they do in self-defense without offering a reasonable and practical alternative that's irrational criticism. When Israel is accused of murdering innocent Turkish humanitarians and the context is deliberately left out - like the fact they were warmongering thugs looking for a fight - that's irrational criticism. When civilians are killed in a war and the fact that they were deliberately and cynically used as human shields by the enemy is left out of the context in order to give the impression that Israel had ill intent, that's irrational criticism (especially given Colonel Kemp's testimony that Israel did more to protect civilians than any other military in the history of warfare). Making Israelis or their Jewish supporters out to be bloodthirsty, racist supremacist supporters of colonialism is irrational criticism. So are the accusations of Jews/Israel in control of foreign governments and media. Or accusing Jews of profitting from the Holocaust and using it as a reason to oppress Palestinians (who are the new Jews to be pitied, as Jews today deserve none due to the actions of their state). Then there's the comparison of Israeli policy to that of the Nazis or the SA apartheid regime. Or downplaying rockets as "firecrackers", accusations of genocide, starving the population, false accusations of bombing a UN school building, the Jenin Massacre, Muhammad al-Dura, and all arguments that mirror the views of Pat Buchanon or David Duke. Now that you know what demonization is, let's move on to the rest of what you wrote....

2. As to your charges of "special pleading, 2 wrongs make a right, passing the buck, and ad-hominem", those are all strawman arguments that misrepresent - probably deliberately - your opponent's position(s).

No one argues Israel deserves to get a pass for its screwups. Or that because others are bad, Israel can be too. That it's the media's fault for reporting Israel's wrongdoing. Or that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

Rather than misrepresent your opponents views, why not simply ask - or at worst - demand clarification? :shrug:

Israel does screw up and like any other nation in the world, it deserves criticism. But are their screwups blown way out of proportion, taken out of context, or often exaggerated? There's no question that's the case. Why the disproportionate focus on Israel - or the double standards? Why the hypocrisy? For comparable actions, are other Western democratic nations held to the same standard. Of course not - Israel is held to a "higher" standard than the USA and UK, not to mention a higher standard than any of the countries surrounding them. If the Palestinians' best interests are the main concern of those who condemn Israel the most, then why the silence WRT Palestinian suffering due to the actions of Arab leadership? Why the need for all this irrational criticism if Israel is so beyond the pale? Why the need to exaggerate or lie by omission? Why go well beyond legitimate and measured criticism?

[Chulanowa]

26. And you should stop pretending op-eds are a source of fact, rather than a source of opinion

Or at least, you could stick your snout in a few new places and explore opinions that don't support your own presuppositions unquestioningly. But that's scary, isn't it? :)

1) I'd like to think you didn't actually read a word of what you typed here before you hit the "post message" button. Just for the sake of thoroughness, what you've got here is a logical fallacy called the Gish Gallop. If you don't feel like clicking links, the gish gallop (named after creationist blowhard Duane Gish) is a tactic of swamping your opponent with a sweeping tide of bullshit, lies, half-truths, straw men, and anything else you can fit into the paragraph, in the hopes that your opponent will get discouraged just by the amount of time needed to counter each stop on your gallop.

2) "I know you are, but what am I?" was a shitty argument in the second grade, and it's only gotten shittier since, Shira. Either you do not understand what a strawman argument is, or you're hoping that you can get some mileage out of the one logical fallacy you happen to know the name of. Sadly, in your attempts to do so, you only perpetuate your original problem; that of not having a good argument and needing to respond to lies and fallacies to say anything at all.

"No one argues Israel deserves to get a pass for its screwups. Or that because others are bad, Israel can be too. That it's the media's fault for reporting Israel's wrongdoing. Or that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. "

Actually, you do exactly that throughout your #1 argument in this post, Shira. Actually tou do all of that.

"When Israel is accused of murdering innocent Turkish humanitarians and the context is deliberately left out - like the fact they were warmongering thugs looking for a fight"
Israel gets a free pass because it made an excuse for itself.

"the fact that they were deliberately and cynically used as human shields by the enemy is left out of the context in order to give the impression that Israel had ill intent,"
Presumably this gives Israel a pass when they do the same. Which, ironically enough, you have seen fit to leave out.

Making Israelis or their Jewish supporters out to be bloodthirsty, racist supremacist supporters of colonialism
Well, you're doing that whole Jew = Israel thing (Again!) but that's beside the point. You see, right now, Israel is set to deport quite a number of families, including at least 400 children, on the basis that they are not Jewish. Really, that's the statement from the Netanyahu government, "we have to preserve Israel's Jewish character." That is, very frankly, about as racist as racism gets; "Get the fuck out, you're the wrong ethnic group!" Supporters of colonialism? Shyeah? Had a look at the West bank lately? east jerusalem? That's colonialism, Shira. it seems then, that in the face of obvious racism and obvious colonialism, your issue is wit hthe fact that it is being reported at all.

"arguments that mirror the views of Pat Buchanon or David Duke."
Any criticism of Israel is therefor antisemitic.

You really don't plan ahead, or do pre-post editing, or anything, do you?

Why the need for all this irrational criticism if Israel is so beyond the pale? Why the need to exaggerate or lie by omission? Why go well beyond legitimate and measured criticism?

The problem isn't that there isn't legitimate and measured criticism, Shira. The problem seems to be that you are unable to accept that there is such a thing as legitimate criticism of Israel. I've watched you contort into the most uncomfortable positions (such as your flirting with denialism, which you seem to have dropped, at least for now. Thankfully) in order to avoid and deny any such criticisms.

In short, the problem is in your perceptions, Shira. To you, everything is "demonization" - unless it's directed against Palestinians, apparently (I'm wagering you'll be unable to plumb even the shallower depths of irony in your #1 statement)

At any rate. I'm off for the evening. Have fun with your stomach ulcers :)

[shira]

29. Hopeless. N/T

[polly7]

18. Israel's gov't actions against Palestinians for decades has caused it's demonization

by those in the rest of the world who have this strange disgust for ethnic cleansing and the atrocity of collective punishment. Especially against children and the elderly. What they have done, and are doing ........ is sickening. They don't seem to mind causing the acts that demonize themselves, I don't know how anyone can defend them over and over ad nauseum. If they didn't have close allies and enablers on the security council, they'd never get away with their aggression and displacement of a population whose only crime was to own the land Israeli's covet.

[shira]

20. The argument in the OP is about an unhealthy, obsessive focus on Israel...

....that acts as a shield against Arab leaders who oppress Palestinians and aren't held accountable at all for the ongoing suffering of most Palestinians. Irrationally criticizing Israel - in a "look over there" attempt to keep the pressure off of Palestinians' worst oppressors - does nothing to actually help Palestinians.

You irrationally accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing - when there has been none. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were actually ethnically cleansed from Kuwait - in a gross act of real collective punishment - back in the 1990's. What on earth has this irrational focus on Israel's imagined "ethnic cleansing" done for those hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were actually ethnically cleansed from Kuwait? :shrug:

Nothing.

You make the case for the OP.

[polly7]

22. LOL at no ethnic cleansing. Perhaps it would be to your benefit to

google the decades of 'cleansing' / aka land theft, pushing them into despair and desperation, the vows of Israeli leaders to rid the Palestinians of their land. You make the case for someone who doesn't care about facts, and who obviously believes those in the rest of the world not agreeing with you are stupid.

An unhealthy focus on Israel??? Who should the focus be on for these atrocities agains a whole people, ..... Iceland?

[azurnoir]

23. Causulties of the Gulf war it happened in 1991

and unfortunately got very little coverage perhaps we were too busy paying attention to Israel's getting hit by Saddam's aging SCUDS

At the end of the Gulf War, Kuwait expelled some 400,000 Palestinians after the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had aligned the PLO with Saddam Hussein, who had invaded Kuwait. The exodus took place during one week in March 1991, after Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi occupation.

The exodus has caused great strain on the Palestinian economy, since many Palestinians working in Kuwait have been an important source of income to the Palestinian economy.

Prior to the exodus, Palestinians made up about 30% of Kuwait's population. By 2006 only a few had returned to Kuwait and today the number of Palestinians living in Kuwait is less than 40,000 (under 3% of the population).

On December 12, 2004, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas apologized for the PLO's support of Saddam Hussein during the invasion of Kuwait.<1>

This page was last modified on 2 April 2010 at 16:26.

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

[EFerrari]

25. It's not demonization if it's true, is it?

And this article is standard right wing victimhood. It's embarrassing to see this stuff on DU.

[shira]

30. It's demonization precisely b/c it's untrue. N/T

[Bodhi BloodWave]

32. I'm curious, Would you say demonizing the Palestinians is also bad for Israel?

[shira]

33. No. I don't see how demonizing anyone is helpful. N/T

[Chulanowa]

35. But Shira... you have yet to admit to any truth in even mild criticism of Israel

Hell, on this thread you're pretending that the Jenin massacre did not occur (I'll grant that initial reports grossly inflated the numbers, but they were corrected). You're arguing that Israelis have no interest in colonialism - despite the obvious proof otherwise standing throughout the west bank. You're peddling the lie that the IHH is a terror organization. You're saying there is no valid comparison to Apartheid, despite the second-class status of non-Jews in Israel, and the walling-off of villages in the West Bank. You spent most of last month absolutely denying that there was the slightest thing wrong in Gaza because - HEY LOOK, a mall!

In fact, Shira, you are one of the primary sources of "untruth" and "demonization" we have around here.

[shira]

38. Maybe we should try to debate what legitimate criticism of Israel is...

1. You mentioned the Jenin massacre, as if it really did occur but the numbers were initially exaggerated. Do you really believe it was a massacre? 23 Israeli soldiers were killed, whereas 56 Palestinians were killed, mostly combatants in close quarter fighting (using the refugee camp and its inhabitants as shields). How can you really argue it was a massacre? This is irrational.

2. As to colonialism, how do you get that Jewish refugees persecuted in other lands were colonialists coming to Israel? As to the W.Bank, Israel has offered a 100% land deal that the Palestinians have refused. All told, Israel has offered back 99% of all land captured in the 1967 war. In fact, all the land was offered back immediately following the '67 war in exchange for peace, but this was rejected by the 3 No's at Khartoum. Odd behavior for colonialists, right? In fact, colonialists are people with no prior connection to the land in question. It's difficult to argue Jews have no historical connection to the land of Israel. The colonialist charge is irrational.

3. The IHH is now considered a terror group by more countries other than Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=182846
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?ID=181502

What explains this other than the dumbass notion that the Israel Lobby controls foreign government policy? It's not a lie that the IHH is a terror organization. But it is a lie to portray the 9 Turks killed on the Marmara as peaceful humanitarians murdered by the IDF, given all the video evidence. That's not rational criticism.

4. As to the Apartheid charge, Jimmy Carter doesn't go so far as to claim there's Apartheid within Israel. While there is discrimination, that's true WRT minorities in most Western democratic nations, so why not stick the label of Apartheid onto any Western democracy where there is discrimination against minorities? Labeling Israel as an apartheid nation isn't rational criticism.

5. You're still saying that I argued there's not "the slightest thing wrong in Gaza because - HEY LOOK, a mall!" Where have I ever written everything is great in Gaza or that there's not the slightest thing wrong there? I haven't. I've only argued that there's no humanitarian crisis there - as have Gershon Baskin, Nicholas Kristoff, and Robert Serry. It's irrational to dismiss them or to lie about people starving there, or to make-believe Israel is doing it's most to see that Palestinians suffer - or pretend Hamas is not deliberately withholding aid and preventing Palestinians from getting medical care in Israel, etc...

In fact, Shira, you are one of the primary sources of "untruth" and "demonization" we have around here.

If you truly believe that, then it's pointless to continue with you. It's a waste of time to argue anything with anyone who can't, won't, or isn't able to distinguish between fact and fiction.

[Chulanowa]

51. Then I suppose I've been wasting my time as well?

I don't feel I have. Maybe this is because I do have an irrational streak, and honestly believe that, as Gandhi taught, The truth is the truth. eventually it will soak through the skull of even those who perpetuate in untruths; even if not, what is true will last far longer than that which is not. This, along with a compulsion to confront those I regard as bigots, is what leads me to keep confronting you, Shira.

Whether you are wasting your time or not depends entirely on what you are trying to achieve. If you are wanting to win me over to your position, you are first going to need a coherent and defensible position. And then you're going to need to find a better way to argue your point. What you've got now is mostly a slurry of emotional rhetoric, mythology, and cognitive dissonance. I don't know how effective this is against others, but I can tell you (and I'm sure you can see) it doesn't work too well on me.

1) Your position is that 27 civilians killed in Jenin is not a massacre. Okay. Here are some details about some of those 27 people killed. Hani Rumeleh, a 19 year old civilian had been shot while looking out his front door. Two nurses, the sisters Fadwa and Rufaida Damaj heard his screaming, and tried to get to his aid. While speaking to some "guys from the resistance" to allow them to pass, the Israeli snipers opened fire again, injuring Rufaida in the leg and Fadwa in the abdomen. The women yelled for help, the "resistance guys" scattered, and the Israelis opened fire again. A bullet traveled through Fadwa's leg and into her chest, opening her heart, killing her in minutes. Jamal Feyed, a wheelchair-bound and mentally handicapped man of 37, was crushed by the rubble of his own home when Israeli bulldozers demolished it, even as his uncle Saeb was pleading for the driver to stop. Kemal Zughayer, 58, had been wounded in the first intifada and could not walk. He was shot dead while trying to wheel himself to his home. His wheelchair was found across the road from the two halves of his body, which had been run over by the tank. A white flag had been tied to the back of the wheelchair.

Arie Caspi, an Israeli journalist for Ha'aretz wrote the following of these deaths.

"Okay, so there wasn't a massacre. Israel only shot some children, brought a house crashing down on an old man, rained cement blocks on an invalid who couldn't get out in time, used locals as human shields against bombs, and prevented aid from getting to the sick and wounded. That's really not a massacre, and there's really no need for a commission of inquiry... whether run by ourselves or the goyim.
The insanity gripping Israel seems to have moved beyond our morals ... many Israelis believe that as long as we do not practice systematic mass murder, our place in heaven is secure. Every time some Palestinian or Scandinavian fool yells "Holocaust!," we respond in an angry huff: This is a holocaust? So a few people were killed, 200, 300, some very young, some very old. Does anyone see gas chambers or crematoria?"

Not long after, on April 27, Palestinian gunmen attacked the illegal settlement of Adora in the West bank. Danielle Shefi, age five was shot in her bedroom, along with her mother and two brothers; the mother survived, Danielle did not. Up the road, Katya and Vladimir Greenburg were sprayed with bullets as they lay in bed. All told, the casualties at Adora amounted to four dead, including two armed settlers who returned fire, and eight wounded.

Major Avner Foxman, the spokesman for the Israeli Army, had this to say about the killings at Adora;
"For me, now I know what is a massacre. This is a massacre."

You'd have to be a cold-blooded fucker to not consider what happened to Danielle Shefi and her family to be a "massacre," if you're going to use the term at all (more on that in a second.) But can you then deny the same term when it is Jamal Feyed who while older than Danielle's 5 years, was likely about her equal mentally and physically, and as much a threat to Israel as she was to the Palestinians? Can you deny it to the Damaj sisters, who's crime was to step out and try to help a young man shot in his own home? If four Israeli civilians dead and eight wounded because they had the misfortune to live in a place militants wanted to attack is a "massacre" (and I won't argue it's not) then what disqualifies 27 Palestinians killed and hundreds wounded and homeless due to having the same misfortune of being in a place someone wanted to attack?

So then, what is the accepted standard for a massacre? How many people have to die, under what conditions, for the term to be valid? It seems very evident that the ethnicity, nationality, or religion of the victims is also a very important consideration. Vladimir Greenburg was "massacred"; Kemal Zughayer was "killed."

Speaking personally, the history of my own people disinclines me to use of the word "massacre." I used it in this instance because it's the common parlance, and it seems applicable. However, across the breadth of the United States, you will find placards commemorating the history of Manifest Destiny and the "Indian Wars." with the exception of a few recently-edited memorials, you'll note a trend. every fight that the Europeans won was a "battle" or a "triumph." On the other hand, fights the Indians won are "massacres" or "slaughters." In South Dakota, you had two monuments. One commemorated the "Massacre of the Seventh Cavalry at Little Bighorn," where General Armstrong Custer led the Cavalry against a sleeping encampment of Lakota and Cheyenne... and lost. In the same state you could find another memorial, commemorating the "Battle of Wounded Knee Creek," where the cavalry "pacified" the Lakota; by killing every man, woman, and child in Big Foot's band after disarming them. Thankfully these two monuments have been changed by the Bureau of Park Services after large outcry, but thousands like them remain around the country.

Only the "good guys" can get massacred, it seems. Little Danielle had the (tragically posthumous) fortune to be of the right race and the right nationality to be considered one such "good guy," while Fadwa Damaj, because of her own ethnicity and nationality (or lack thereof) is "the enemy" and thus is immune to the tragedy of being massacred.

Would you like me to address your second point, Shira?

[shira]

53. More of the same ad hominem from you, and bullshit

Do you realize HRW, AI, the UN, and the BBC - among others - are on record admitting there was no massacre at Jenin?

[whosinpower]

57. Now suddenly...

HRW and the UN are not bigotted, racist organizations?!? Some how - on this instance they are relevant?

That is hilarious that you would use them as a defense.

[shira]

58. When the biggest Israel bashing organizations come to agree with Israel's position...

....it's a safe bet Israel's correct in its statements.

Of course, you and others who condemn Israel constantly seem to believe just about anything HRW and the UN alleges about Israel.

But not this time? :shrug:

[whosinpower]

59. And when those same organizations do not agree with Israel....

Then they must be bigotted....is that how it works?

Shira - do you believe that a person can be pro Israel and also pro Palistinian? Or is it always one or the other, but never both, and never neither.

[shira]

60. When they legitimately criticize according to the facts, that's one thing..

....but when they go overboard, lie by omission and comission, etc., then they can't be trusted. Here's a great example on a recent event...
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/08/todays-example-of-ridiculous-media-bias.html

But if the media cannot even get right a previously announced, UN-approved, maintenance activity on Israeli territory then what hope is their getting right anything more complex?

Read the whole article and please, let me know what you honestly think about it. HRW and the UN act the same way.

Yes, I definitely think a person can be both pro Israel and pro Palestinian. That would describe someone like Amos Oz.

[whosinpower]

64. Well here's the problem

you wrote....but when they go overboard, lie by omission and comission, etc., then they can't be trusted.

That is true. Totally true.

It is also true that there are those who write about bias, "moonbats", that are made to paint the whole world being against Israel as some sort of grand conspiracy - and they go overboard, lie by omission and comission, etc and they also cannot be trusted.

And the effect is that the truth is twisted to whatever agenda you wish it to be, regardless of which side of the fence you wish to sit on.

I did read the article. I have to say initially, it is not so easy to read it from a neutral viewpoint when the title is - Today's example of Ridiculous Media Bias Against Israel

The author makes a couple valid points and then finds bias where I do not see. AP and Yahoo should make corrections - the israeli's were not on Lebanese land. I agree with this.
But he is trying to find bias where I simply do not see - example
snip - The New York Times also takes a "neutral" approach: "Each side blamed the other for the flare-up, trading accusations of violating the United Nations Security Council resolution that underpins the four-year cease-fire." But what is most amazing is the additional information that tells us more about contemporary journalism than almost anything you can read:

"Israel said that its forces were engaged in routine maintenance work in a gap between the so-called Blue Line, the internationally recognized border, and its security fence, and that it had coordinated in advance with the United Nations peacekeeping force in South Lebanon, Unifil."

Yeah, so Shira - I read and reread this several times, and I am not "getting" what that is supposed to tell us about contemporary journalism. Because, now, according to Rubin - The NYT clearly should of contacted Unifil to verify Israel's claim. Why? No one was questioning Israel's claim in the article - the article stated that each side blamed the other - which is technically true - yes? Both have traded accusations of violating UNSC - that is also true - yes? The article does not take sides, and I guess this is what Rubin takes issue with....and even by not taking sides....that is somehow conflated to bias. I'm sorry, but I find that hard to accept. I guess a person will see what they want to see regardless if it matches the facts on the ground.

He goes on...

snip - Oh, and then there's this amazing little example of bias in the article:

"Israeli and Lebanese army troops exchanged lethal fire on their countries’ border on Tuesday, in what was the fiercest clash in the area since Israel’s month-long war against the Lebanese Hizballah militia in the summer of 2006."

Is that biased? Really? Let's try something here....I am making something up....
"American and the Taliban exchanged lethal fire on the border of Pakistan on Tuesday, in what was the fiercest clash in the area since America's eight year war in Afghanistan against Al qaeda terrorists in the summer of 2000.

If I were to subsribe to the Rubin's viewpoint - then by not talking about 911 - somehow my statement is biased against the americans. Amazing...... stretch that is.

He goes on to point out that if the media cannot be trusted to report the truth, then it cannot be trusted to report accurately the following...and he goes on, point by point several issues.

The problem that I have is that his example - the New York Times did report the facts...it just didn't portray Israel as a victim, and therefore, according to him - this is biased.

But, you are absolutely right Shira - when they go overboard, they cannot be trusted. Same can be said on both sides of the fence.

By the way, I did a bit of reading on Amos Oz. Interesting fellow....too bad he isn't the Prime Minister. I especially like this quote -
"Once in a while it is worth turning on the light to clarify what is going on ..."

[shira]

65. You're comparing OP-ED contributors to the MSM, UN, and NGO's...

Do you expect the MSM to report the facts on page 1 or opinion pieces? Should it matter what Hezbollah or Hamas claims when the facts prove them wrong? When it's known they're lying, why report as though their claims are credible?

I would love for Amos Oz and others like him to be in charge of Israel.

[Chulanowa]

72. That's rich

coming from someone who's OP's are universally op-ed pieces and blogs.

[shira]

74. It's sad when some blogs and op-ed pieces are more accurate and honest than reported news and NGO's

When so many journalists and NGO's mistake thugs for humanitarians and Hezbollah's recent actions on par with Israeli routine maintenance of trees, that's sad.

[Chulanowa]

78. How many Egyptian Lira to swim in the pool behind the mall? n/t

[whosinpower]

89. That is what you asked me to do

You asked me to read the article and tell you what I thought.
I pointed out problems with the opinion article - and now I am not supposed to make the comparison?

See - these very problems with the opinion article by Rubin is that he inflates what he percieves as bias in an attempt to write a compelling story....except he is grasping at straws....that is my opinion. To me, his opinion article is not credible either. He blows it when he inflates neutrality into being bias. Neither was Dershowitz.

In the credibility game, you ask should it matter what Hezbollah or Hamas claims when the facts prove them wrong. Sure it should. But I would not silence them - I would refute them openly. Sometimes the facts prove Israel wrong. I would not silence them either - I would refute them openly.

Back to the original op - demonizing Israel harms Palistinians.....I would go so far as to say demonizing any group harms the other. Demonizing palistinians harms Israel. You may disagree with me, but I see guys like Amos Oz as being the type of leader that can bring Israel closer to good relations with its neighbors - and after all this time, his message has been silenced by the radical right. That isn't demonizing Israel - that is criticizing its leadership and the policies that leadership invokes in its ideological pursuit.


So, let me ask you this - how does the world go about criticizing policies that negatively effect stability in regards to a two state solution and the future of Israel/Palistine and at the same time empower guys like Amos Oz?

[shira]

95. Rubin has a point.

You may think the statement was neutral, but Rubin and many others know full well there are a significant amount of people who read these news reports and have no idea that Lebanon actually started the 2006 war. In fact, Rubin knows that with the way the media is, it's likely that most believe Israel was the aggressor and started the war. The problem with the most recent reports on the situation at the Lebanese/Israeli border is that the actual facts aren't being reported. Instead, it's just "he said, she said" faux journalism that leaves everything up for debate (unless one does some digging).

Here's an example from Reuters today...
"By Israel's account of Tuesday's events, a Lebanese army sniper hit two Israeli officers as they watched a tree-pruning operation on the security fence below the U.N. "Blue Line." The Lebanese army said it first fired warning shots, then Israelis fired at their soldiers. Israeli artillery and tank fire followed."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6760LV20100807

By Israel's account, as though it remains questionable? Israel's account has been confirmed by the UN and openly admitted by the LAF. This claim of "warning shots" is complete bullshit not even being utilized by the LAF. See the problem now? ;)

I agree that what Hezbollah, Hamas, and Israel reports should be questioned and later proven wrong in a public forum. Good point there. But that's not happening here with Reuters and others, is it?

It's not that Amos Oz's message has been silenced by the radical right. It's that the Left's mantra of land-for-peace has been proven wrong. Sure, it's still the only game in town but Israelis have seen that it hasn't worked. The only Israelis and non-Israelis who don't see it this way are those who can't be bothered by facts and reality.

Do you think the world is reluctant to harshly criticize Lebanon for its recent actions against Israel at the border b/c of some fear that this criticism would cause instability? And that if it were as critical as it should be, people like Amos Oz would be marginalized?

[whosinpower]

108. The statement WAS neutral and THAT is what Rubin had issue with

You do understand the meaning of neutral yes? Neutral does not take sides.

And as for your example - The article does not infer Israel's account is questionable. YOU are inferring that. And it is my understanding that the LAF admitted to firing first - warning shots in the air first. You claim this is bullshit - but you weren't there, and neither was I.

I think the world wants both parties to uphold UNSC 1701 and allow Unifil to fulfill its mandate. Unifil asked for AND recieved renewed committments from both parties to cease hostilities and work with Unifil in regards to UNSC 1701. It asked both parties to exercise MAXIMUM restraint and avoid any action that might heighten tensions. Both parties agreed Shira. We should do the same.

http://unifil.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1499&ctl=Details&mid=3103&ItemID=9902
Naqoura, Lebanon - UNIFIL Force Commander Major-General Alberto Asarta Cuevas chaired an extraordinary tripartite meeting with senior representatives of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) on Wednesday 04 August 2010 at the UN Position at the Ras Al Naqoura crossing. The UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Mr. Michael Williams also attended and addressed the meeting.


The meeting specifically addressed the serious situation that developed in the last two days following the exchange of fire between Lebanese and Israeli forces across the Blue Line in El Adeisse yesterday, causing regrettable loss of lives.


UNIFIL informed the parties that a thorough investigation into Tuesday’s events is underway and presented its preliminary findings.

On completion of the ongoing investigation, UNIFIL will share its findings with both the parties. In the meantime, UNIFIL urged the parties to exercise maximum restraint, avoid any action that could serve to heighten tensions, and work with UNIFIL in taking steps to prevent any recurrence of such a situation.


Following the tripartite meeting, UNIFIL Force Commander Major-General Asarta said: “We had a constructive meeting. I stressed the importance of ensuring full respect for the Blue Line by all the parties. I reiterated the sensitivity of the Blue Line and urged utmost caution in any actions along the Blue Line that could be perceived as provocative and exacerbate tensions. I called on the parties to utilize the liaison and coordination mechanism through UNIFIL particularly on matters relating to the Blue Line in order to minimize the scope for any misunderstandings or apprehensions that may lead to wanton escalation.”

The Force Commander noted that both the parties renewed their commitment to the cessation of hostilities and to UN Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) and undertook to work with UNIFIL to ensure that incidents of violence are avoided in the future.

[Chulanowa]

63. Then what shall we call it?

It's telling that you are more offended by the use of the term "massacre" to describe the deaths of 27 civilians including a nurse, a 19 year old kid in his own home, a cripple, and a mental invalid than you are by their deaths.

Similarly, you persist in smugly proclaiming that Kristof has declared there is no "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza; He's just pointed out that it's a desperately impoverished place with huge unemployment where people have scarce water and electricity and are quite malnourished and living under the guns of both a foreign military and their own territory's thugs. Stuff like that is a Humanitarian crisis in Africa, or maybe Asia or even Latin America or Europe somewhere, but in Gaza? pffft noooo. Again, you are more offended by the term used than the conditions that lead to the term being used at all.

Maybe you could suggest newer, happier terms, that we can use just for Israel?

[shira]

66. Why the need to label it something it's not?

Real apartheid is practiced in neighboring countries around Israel, but I'm certain the sources you respect the most falsely label Israel as an apartheid state and have never once leveled that charge against any other Arab nation.

Hamas' charter and government statements point to an ideology WRT Jews on par with the 3rd Reich, however it's Israel that is mostly compared to the Nazis while Hamas' ideology is minimized, ignored, or whitewashed.

Why don't the sources you respect most report things as they are instead of inverting reality? What is the motivation for this?

[Chulanowa]

68. What shall we call it, Shira?

You're evading the question. What do you call 27 innocent people killed in one night, among htem children, nurses, and mental invalids? What do you call four innocent people killed in one night, among them a child and two elders?

What the fuck do you call it, Shira? because I really want to know now.

[shira]

69. It was a fierce battle with civilian casualties entirely attributable...

....to the Palestinian terrorists who deliberately embedded themselves within a refugee population and boobytrapped most of the camp. The facts are that 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in an effort to reduce Palestinian civilian casualties. Most Palestinians killed at Jenin were terrorists. I challenge you to point to soldiers placed in a similar situation, rooting out terror block to block, who would have or did perform more admirably. The loss of civilian life is awful in any battle, but you're assuming the Palestinian testimony you quoted is accurate and not politically compromised.

One of Israel's best efforts to reduce civilian casualties was hyped up as massacre after Israel purposely put IDF soldiers in a situation far more dangerous than the type NATO soldiers are placed in their current war. And you wonder why the vast majority of Israelis can't take your irrational criticism seriously?

Michael Oren recently said:

"Our critics don't get it," Oren said. "In Jenin, we went house-to-house and sent 23 soldiers to their death. But if we're going to be called war criminals no matter what we do, then maybe that changes our thinking."

[Chulanowa]

71. So then what do we call the murder of Danielle Shefi?

Is she just collateral damage, who's death is totally attributable to the illegal land theft her parents engaged in? If 27 killed for living i nthe wrong place when someone decided to attack is not a massacre, then certainly FOUR people in the same situation isn't, either, right?

[shira]

75. Cold blooded murder.

You really think it's fair to compare the IDF raid on Jenin to a deliberate act of murder? As though the IDF went in as shit kickers determined to take out any Palestinians they found on the streets of Jenin?

[Chulanowa]

77. Obviously not

Danielle Shafi was a Jew, and thus she was murdered in cold blood.

Kemal Zughayer was an Arab, and so running him over with an armored bulldozer was perfectly justified.

[shira]

85. How do you know Zughayer's death was intentional murder? N/T

[Chulanowa]

91. So you're saying the Israelis accidentally shot him

And then accidentally ran him over with a bulldozer.

All the other civilian deaths, also all accidents? Also completely forgivable? Crushing an invalid under hte rubble of his own home even after being told he was in there, accidental? Gunning down two uniformed nurses, accidental?

of course there's the problem that the Jenin "battle" was a completely optional operation by the Israeli military intentionally targeting residential areas. You can argue that the Israeli military was "restrained" but that's a ludicrous argument - they could have nuked the place, therefor an all-out air assault with conventional weapons would also be "restrained." The fact that it happened at all demonstrates a large lack of restraint. Might as well argue that the US assault on Baghdad was "restrained" because we could have been much much worse.

Shira, you've got a few choices here.

1) Jenin is right, Adora is wrong, end of story. This is a logically inconsistent view and would be a sign of a terribly confused mind.
2) Jenin is right because of who got killed, and Adora is wrong because of who got killed. Arabs in one, Jews i nthe other. This would be an internally consistent viewpoint in which you either regard Arabs as inferior or Jews superior. It would brand you a bigot, but you'd be consistent.
3) Jenin is right, and Adora was right. Jenin was a haven for "terrorists" and the killing innocents (if they were such!) are justified because of this. Adora was justified because it was an illegal settlement, and the men and women there were thieves and brigands, and were using their children as human shields. Also a logically consistent, though highly misanthropic reponse.
4) Jenin was wrong and Adora was wrong. The killing of innocents is not right not excusable, regardless of who they are or why you're out there killing them. Logically consistent, and comfortably humanistic.

[shira]

93. You're assuming eyewitness testimony against IDF wasn't politically compromised

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of examples in which eyewitness Palestinian testimony has been proven to be politically motivated bullshit.

For example, there is plenty of real hard evidence - even video testimony of Palestinians in Gaza claiming Hamas used them deliberately as human shields and this testimony was of course of no use to the Goldstone commission and was totally ignored by HRW and Amnesty Int'l who claimed 'no evidence' of any such thing. Instead, the eyewitness testimony that was accepted by Goldstone and the HR bigots was all other politically motivated crap against Israel approved in advance by Hamas that Hamas knew wouldn't come back to bite them in the ass.

Here's one of many examples...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgpg3ZexGJo&feature=related

Not to say that some of what you believe happened in Jenin - some not all - didn't unfortunately happen....

[Chulanowa]

98. Ah yes, the Great Big Conspiracy

The entire world is out to get po' widdle iswael! Yep, you're onto us, Shira. Every November 17, the entire world goes into conference and coordinate the nasty things we'll say about Israel in the next year. Weird thing is, the whole thing is spearheaded by a bunch of non-Israeli Jews; I guess they're just good at this whole "international conspiracy" thing, after all! Anyway, it's more of a hobby for the world's non-Israelis. We just like fucking with those guys. I mean, sure, the entire world is nothing but a bunch of filthy goy antisemites with axes to grind, you'd figure if we all really wanted to hurt Israel, we have better means than, you know, occasionally slanting a news article towards a pro-Palestinian bias, or nicely asking Israel to follow through on UN Resolution 242 or something. I mean shit, man, the US, UK, France, China, and Russia are all in on it togetehr, the whole Security Council, and they've all got nukes and spend more on bullets than ten years of Israel's entire GDP.

Though this year we plan to discuss floridating Israel's water. MUHUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[shira]

102. Why don't you explain to me why evidence like in the video above was ignored....

....by Goldstone and NGO and HR groups WRT Hamas' criminal use of human shields?

Your indifference to Hamas' war crimes against Palestinian civilians belies your concern for those same civilians when it appears Israel violates their rights.

[hack89]

40. So why haven't the actions by the govt of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan had the same effect?

One would think they view the Palestinians as a real threat based on their persecution of them. Or do you think they are simply using them as pawns against Israel?

[shira]

41. Right, why aren't Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Kurwait, & Syria demonized for their treatment of Pal'ns?

Real ethnic cleansing, real massacres, denial of the most basic human rights, keeping refugees penned up in ghettos for over 60 years...

The answer is obvious.

[Tripmann]

42. And what answer is that shira?

Do you actually think your 'wheres the equivalent outrage' BS flys around here??

If its laughable when fox news tries it, why try it on a liberal board?

[shira]

43. Answered in #37 above. N/T

[hack89]

45. Would you be satisfied if Israel treated the Palestinians as well as the Arab governments? nt

[Tripmann]

46. Does the abuses inflicted by arab governments in any way diminish the suffering inflicted by israel?

[hack89]

47. No - it just deserves equal moral outrage.

they have killed just as many Palestinians as Israel has. They are also the ones keeping them in concentration camps.

[Tripmann]

48. Take your 'equivalent outrage' crap over to an apologist board, will ya?

[hack89]

49. You are denying history - Black September was not that long ago

and be honest - why do you think the Arab countries keep the Palestinians in the refugee camps?

[Chulanowa]

52. Actually it was 40 years ago

I dunno what standards of measurement you're using, but four decades actually is quite a while.

[shira]

55. Chuli, would you be satisfied if Israel were to treat Palestinians as well as Arab governments?

Also, should Arab governments be demonized for their treatment of Palestinians?

:shrug:

[Chulanowa]

70. I won't be satisfied until everyone treats Palestinians like decent human beings

This notion seems to be inconceivable to you, Shira. It's not either Israel or Kuwait, there are many more options, and a great number of them are superior to either of the two you are presenting.

[shira]

73. But you don't believe Hamas should be criticized for their treatment of Palestinians.

In addition, you support Arab governments keeping refugees penned up in camps without the option to move in to their own homes.

So how can you claim satisfaction when Palestinians are treated as human beings while you remain indifferent to their oppression by Arab governments?

Again, should Arab governments be demonized for their treatment of Palestinians?

[Chulanowa]

76. Actually, I do.

Hamas certainly bears a fair amount of responsibility for things that have gone wrong in Gaza. I have mentioned this several times, and I cannot be faulted if your own hard biases don't allow you to notice.

Here's the rub, though; the blockade on Gaza empowers Hamas to do these things, Shira. By closing Gaza off economically, Israel has made the Gazans even more dependent on Hamas, which is the only organization in Gaza that has the resources needed. This in turn grants Hamas a great increase in power over these people. Further, the spiralling poverty and loss of basic rights is (quite rightly) blamed on the people responsible for the conditions in the first place; in this case, it's Israel. This is not "demonization," Shira, it's simple fact. it's what happened in Cuba, and Iraq, and North Korea, and Myanmar, and Sudan, and I promise you it's what will happen in Iran, as well once those sanctions get heavy enough.

So long as you defend this blockade, Shira, you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to talking shit about Hamas in Gaza. So long as Israel perpetuates the blockade, they haven't got one, either.

"In addition, you support Arab governments keeping refugees penned up in camps without the option to move in to their own homes. "

Not quite. Nice try, of course, that that's kind of exactly the opposite of what I said. Shira, you're doing this thing called "lying."

However, I understand you are talking about that "Build Your Own Home" program Israel ran. I can't seem to find any official information about this, maybe you can help. Just going by what CAMERA provides (you like CAMERA, right, staunchly anti-Arab Pro-Israel enough for your tastes?) I can see a few glaring problems.

First, the program violated international law. The Palestinian refugees have the Right of Return that every other refugee in the world had. Israel is also barred from moving people around in territories it occupies, just like any other occupying power. By partaking in the program, the Palestinians would have waived that first right. Second, they would have been moved out of the West bank and into Gaza. Which brings us to point two. it was one-directional. it was open only to Palestinians in the West bank (certainly not Palestinians in Arab nations, as you lyingly claim). Those that accepted could only go to Gaza. Next is the economics of the program. It was subsidized - not fully paid for by the state, just subsidized. Let's pretend for a moment that the majority of this subsidization didn't take the form of Israel "giving" Gazan land away. Israel was still expecting refugees it created to pay for the privilege to build their own home over in the desert. Can we assume that the Israeli land management departments at the time were any less corrupt than they are today?

Now, was Israel acting from the sheer goodness of its heart? I can't say. But I can say that if it were, there are much better measures it could have taken. Like... letting the '67 refugees come back to their own homes and receiving reparations owed. How about offering full Israeli citizenship, with all the benefits that come with that? Or how about even offering to build homes for the refugees in the West bank, without asking them to waive their rights?

The UN opposed this program because it violated international law - Of course, some Israel supporters don't believe that such things as "law" apply to Israelis, but whatever - and not because of some dastardly seventy-year plan to make Israel look a little worse than it makes itself look.

"So how can you claim satisfaction when Palestinians are treated as human beings while you remain indifferent to their oppression by Arab governments?"

You're doing that "lying" thing again, Shira. have you forgotten my criticism of Kuwait? Lebanon? Saudi Arabia? of course you have, they don't fit into the pretend land you live in.

"Again, should Arab governments be demonized for their treatment of Palestinians?"

Nope.

Of course, by your standards of "demonization," simply mentioning that they have done such things would be considered "irrational" and "hateful" and "bigoted in the extrme" and anyone who points out the offenses of these Arab nations is "just like David Duke and Pat Buchanan."

Or perhaps that's just the double standard you live by.

[shira]

86. No, you don't.

Palestinians have been oppressed by Arab governments since well before 1967, and it appears you have no problem with those Arab governments evading responsibility for their actions. Tell me, would you be in favor of Arab governments being criticized more -not by you since you seem to believe you criticize them enough, but by NGO's, the media, and the UN - for their role in ongoing Palestinian suffering (lack of basic human rights, keeping refugees in camps)? Or are you fine with the current level of criticism out there (or lack thereof)? Not demonization, just criticism based on hard fact. For or against?

You say Hamas shouldn't be criticized because of the siege, but Palestinians are denied basic human rights under Fatah in the W.Bank. So are you in favor of Fatah being criticized more for their role in Palestinian suffering? They're not under a blockade, so you can't use that argument. Are you even aware of Fatah's HR violations in the W.Bank? Maybe the fact that Fatah isn't held accountable for its actions is due to NGO's, the media, and the UN having such low expectations for that government, which is racism - right?

Here's a source other than CAMERA for the "build-your-own-home" program...
http://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0526/26191.html

I have no idea where you get the notion that the program was open only to West Bank Palestinians who'd have to move to Gaza and renounce any refugee claims in a future deal with Israel. I also wonder why you'd take issue with individual Palestinians who would choose to leave the camps in order to move into homes of their own. You don't believe individual Palestinian refugees have the right to make that choice? Israel wasn't forcing anything on anyone. In fact, they offered Palestinians a great opportunity. If you can't condemn the UN for perpetuating the refugee situation in the Palestinian territories, what does that say about you? The PLO threatened and actually killed Palestinians who chose to partake in this program. The UN not only let them get away with that; they did the PLO's sick bidding and outlawed the program, giving individual Palestinians no choice in the matter. And here you are making silly excuses for that crap.

[Chulanowa]

92. Yes, in fact, I do

What you miss is that this is the Israel / Palestine forum. Get me an Egypt / Palestine forum, or a Kuwait / Palestine forum, and I'll get to work. If you dislike speaking of Israel in a forum dedicated in part to speaking of Israel, might I suggest limiting yourself to the lounge threads about kittens? If nothing else, it'd be far more relaxing.

Should Arab governments be mentioned and criticized when it comes to the plight of the Palestinians? Absolutely. In fact, they regularly are, which is how you and I have the resources to even hold this discussion in the first place. And of course, due to media cowardice when it comes to criticizing Israel, and a plethora of pundits like Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, Daniel Pipes, and amateurs such as yourself, news of this stuff is all over the place.

Here's the rub (lots of rub happening, have you noticed?) The crimes of the other Arab nations do not diminish, justify, or excuse the crimes of Israel.

Can you please repeat that phrase, Shira, just so I know you read it? I'll assume comprehension, but if you feel the need to prove it, I'd be all for you doing so.

That phrase is the crux of our disagreement here, Shira. You clearly only have interest in the plight of Palestinians in other Arab nations in an effort to deflect from what Israel is doing to Palestinians far more regularly. You never bring the topic up unless it is to do just that.

If you want to convey concern for the situation of the Palestinians, then you're going to need to realize that Israel is no innocent in that regard.

You want to talk about the refugees? Israel could solve the refugee problem in a single instant. Acknowledge the right of return. Even if Israel decides to tell UNRWA to bite it and only offers the right to those people actually driven out in 1948 and 1967, it would still be clearing a gigantic hurdle. Israel refuses to do so, because, as Your Boy Netanyahu explains, "we need to preserve Israel's Jewish character."

The Arab governments aren't helping the Palestinian refugees. But without Israel's expansionism, there would be no refugees, and without Israel's racism, a fair number of those refugees could go home. Your wanting to look only at the Arab governments is like pointing out that someone's headlight got busted in a five-car pileup.

[shira]

94. Come on now...

I asked you if you believed the MSM, NGO's, and UN should criticize Arab governments more for what they have done and are still doing to Palestinians. It certainly appears you're against that for the sole reason Israel wouldn't be criticized as much - or that the wider context would be understood and Israel's actions would appear more understandable in light of the policies of Arab governments.

An example is the following video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgpg3ZexGJo&feature=related

There's plenty of more evidence like that which explains to a great extent civilian casualties during OCL - and for that matter during the 2006 Lebanon war. One problem with NOT holding Arab governments accountable for something like this is that they'll do it over and over again - putting their civilians deliberately in harm's way in order to gain an advantage against Israel. Hezbollah and Hamas are ultimately responsible for the lives of their shields, not Israel, and to not call it as it is and hold them accountable is to approve of their actions. How else is Hamas and Hezbollah to see the indifference of HR groups to their strategy as anything other than tacit approval? They know they can keep doing it and HR groups won't say a word. Anyone indifferent to Hezbollah/Hamas being held responsible for their actions - in a sick effort to keep the focus squarely on Israel - has no right to call themselves a humanitarian or peace advocate who has Palestinian or Lebanese civilian interests at heart.

Anyone in favor of the UN putting a stop to the Build-Your-Own-Home Program which gave individual Palestinians the choice to get out of a refugee camp is also an enemy of peace and certainly no humanitarian. You can't even muster up enough courage to criticize Arab governments for their ongoing role in the refugee situation - a situation that has no parallel in modern history with millions of refugees after WW2 being denied return to their former homes.

[Chulanowa]

97. Cut out with the "human shields" nonsense

When you choose to drop cluster bombs into an urban area you can't fucking claim innocent lives lost are justified because they are "human shields." When you target civilians and end up killing them, you can't claim that they are human shields. The dead at Jenin, the civilians dead in Lebanon, these are no more "human shields" than the people in Sderot getting rocketed, or the citizens of Beit Hilel who had Israeli guns and missile launchers stationed in their kibbutzes during the 2006 war.

So your position is pretty clearly #2; Arabs dead are justified at all times, Jews dead are never justified at any time.

I'm not surprised. Now fuck off.

[shira]

103. It's not nonsense. And you've now proven my point. N/T

[hack89]

56. 67 was four decades ago - you are right, its history long settled and irrelevant nt

[Chulanowa]

61. I don't recall saying that

Just that four decades isn't particularly recent.

Project much?

[hack89]

62. It's either relevant or its not

that's the point.

[Chulanowa]

79. Alright then

next question; relevant to what, exactly? If we're talking about Jordanian history or the background of the Munich killings, it's certainly relevant. if we're talking about hte current situation, then at best, it's a footnote, and could be considered wholly irrelevant.

[hack89]

80. It is relevant in that it reflects a still current attitude towards Palestinians

held by Arab governments - they (or more accurately their leadership) are a violent and uncontrollable bunch that represent a real threat.

For example, Hamas and Hezbollah represent a real threat of war and/or civil unrest as they wage a proxy war on the behalf of Iran against both Israel and Sunni Muslim governments.

Another example is Hamas' roots within Islamic Brotherhood - a group that is actively fighting to overthrow the Egyptian government.

Black September is fresh in the minds of all Arab governments - why do you think they keep such a tight leash on the Palestinians in their countries?

[Chulanowa]

81. You're a little mixed up, but at least you're being honest with this

So kudos to you.

[hack89]

82. No - I am not mixed up

it takes a particularly myopic world view to look at a region with a long rich history of religious and ethnic strife and minimize all that took place more than a decade ago. My points about how the Arab governments view Palestinian leadership are very accurate - Fatah is remembered because of the events leading up to Black September. Hamas and Hezbollah are seen as the means by which Iran is attempting to finish a Shia arc from Iran through Iraq to the Mediterranean. The Arabs hate and fear Iran more than they do the Israelis - that is why they have bottled up the Palestinians. That is also why they are signaling to the US that they support a strike on Iran.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-706445,00.html


I know that shades of gray have no place in your "Israel is the root of all ME strife" world but you should at least give the appearance of a deeper understanding of the complexity of ME history - here's a hint: it was pretty fucked up for the average Palestinian well before Israel was created.

[Chulanowa]

83. Now you're very mixed up

Did you know that lebanon has, from day one, been majority Shia? It's not some dastardly plan by Iran being executed by Hezbollah; they've always been there.

Hamas has old ties to the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt (It's a proper noun, the name of an organization). However they currently regard each other with enmity. Israel also has a very strong role in the founding and spread of Hamas, as they funded and supplied it to create an islamist counter to the secular PLO. Seems to have backfired on Israel, but what can you do, huh?

Black September is hardly "fresh" in the minds of the Middle East. It is, as I said, a footnote. it has greater-than-zero impact on the region of course, but it's not exactly policy-defining.

As for accusing me of not having a deeper understanding of Middle Eastern history... You've gotta be kidding :rofl: I certainly don't think Israel is the root of all middle eastern strife; it doesn't help, but it's main impact is in Lebanon, Syria, and of course the Palestinian Territories. I think you need to spend a little more time reading and a little less time making shit up on hte fly.

[hack89]

84. I will concede the point on Hezbollah

in so far as the Palestinian are predominately Sunni and the animosity towards Hezbollah has more to do with traditional Arab/Persian and Sunni/Shia hatreds than the Palestinian issue per se.

But it is also clear that what happened in Lebanon makes it clear that Black September is not irrelevant - to the contrary it drove home that hard lesson to all Arab governments. After being driven out of Jordan the PLO moved to Lebanon. Its insistence that they had the right to wage war from Lebanese territory created much suffering for the Lebanese as Israel retaliated. The violence instigated by the PLO caused much social and political instability and certainly contributed to the civil that killed many. The Lebanese have a well earned hatred of the Palestinians that they will never forgive.

After Jordan and Lebanon it is pretty clear why the Arabs treat the Palestinians as a particularly potent brand of poison that needs to be bottled up and contained.

As for Hamas, well they are fundamentalist religious nut cases armed by Iran. Two strikes against them as far as their neighbors are concerned.

[Chulanowa]

87. See upthread where I lay out the precise undercurrents in Lebanon

Most of the anti-Palestinian sentiment is not coming for the Shia Muslims, but rather from the nation's Christians. And it's not so much religious as it is political; thanks to the ludicrous way the Lebanese government is set up, it's probably always going to be in this state.. .Which is of course exactly why the french set it up that way. Sort of like why the British divided the Palestinian Mandate (and India, for that matter) the way they did; colonial timebombs.

The PLO's insistence that it had a right to attack from Lebanon was bad for Lebanon. But Israel deciding that this then justified their occupation of lebanon certainly hurt the lebanese worse. Israel's attempts to foster a national split in Lebanon to create a Christian Arab state directly north of Israel sure didn't help things, either. Then, as now, Israel's response is rather like opening a stubborn compact disk by tossing it into a woodchipper.

When you are trying to portray Black September as pivotal to the current status of Palestinians in Arab states, you demonstrate that you don't really know what you're talking about. I have to wonder if you'd even heard of hte group prior to seeing some thread or article like this wherein some pro-Israeli goober tries to use Jordan's response to a coup attempt to try to justify how Israel treats Palestinians.

Take Kuwait. the Royal Family of Kuwait did not expel their Palestinians because of Black September. They were in no threat of a coup or anything of the sort from these people. It's way more mundane than that. Those Palestinians asked for higher wages than "imports" from Pakistan, India, and the Philippines. Kuwait took advantage of international blindness that painted Kuwait as a heroic little nation, and expelled its Palestinians for nothing more than to create a market niche for more pliable slave and semi-slave labor. Kuwait also expelled several thousand Bedouin, and there were no shortage of Israeli nationals kidnapped by the Iraqis who were cut out, as well, for the same reason.

In fact, the most recent event that has any relation to Black September was the "Incident at Hama" (since i am told that Arabs cannot be massacred). This actually didn't involve Palestinians, but rather was the Syrian government cracking down on a Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. its similarity to Black September was that it started as a coup attempt against the Assad government, and... well, the Syrians responded about like you expect the Ba'ath party to respond; mass bloodbath. it has several differences from Black September; the Hama uprising was proactive, while the Black September fighting was reactionary. Hama was Islamist, Black September was secular. Hama was pretty much purely homegrown Syrian (plenty of Egyptian influence I'd bed, even after the Egypt-Syria joint nationhood had passed to dust) while Black September was primarily conducted by Palestinians.

A study of Palestinian relations with their Arab neighbors finds pretty much what you would expect; some decades their fortunes wax, other decades they wane. Sometimes the Palestinians have broad, strong support as they did from Nasser, other times they are at the very bottom as they were in the early 90's. When you try to compare this to Israeli-Palestinian relations, you'll not that there's a hurdle; the Palestinian's relations with Israel have never waxed. At best they have occasionally plateaued, as they did between 1953 and the early 60's. That relation has been steadily imnical to the Palestinians since 1948, and has generally only been getting worse. There are ups and downs between the Palestinians and other Arab state; there are only downs with occasional bouts of status quo between the Israelis and Palestinians.

[PanoramaIsland]

36. Rabid demonization of Israel hurts the credibility of progressive Jews (like me)...

...by lending credence to the idea that criticism of Israeli actions is by nature anti-Semitic.

I dislike a great deal of what Israel does, but I'm hesitant to call myself "pro-Palestinian," because that means in most people's eyes that I'm anti-Israeli and a "self-hating Jew."

I get mass emails from this fellow I've known for a long time which are completely one-sided and totally over-the-top anti-Israel. I've tried to tell him how harmful I think his sort of ranting is to everyone involved in this terrible conflict, but unsurprisingly, he won't listen. He thinks I'm brainwashed because I'm Jewish.

Sigh...

[eyl]

44. I'd also add

that rabid demonization of Israel makes Israelis dismissive of all criticism, automatically blocking it out instead of actually listening...

[shira]

88. Demonizers don't care that their criticism is dismissed by most Israelis.

The goal isn't to criticize in order to promote better outcomes.

It's irrational hate, or Jew baiting.

[PanoramaIsland]

90. For what it's worth, I also dismiss irrational glorification of Israel and whitewashing

of its governmental record.
Because, you know, that's hate, too.
Palestinian-baiting, I'd call it.

[shira]

96. Mondoweiss reports Israel floated poison balloons over Lebanon

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/the-lebanese-army-finally-acts-to-protect-lebanons-sovereignty.html

:rofl:

Someone needs to remind the bozos at Mondoweiss that this is the 21st century, not the 11th.

[Chulanowa]

99. Now you know why we laugh at you when you present blogs and op-eds as fact

:rofl: indeed.

[Riftaxe]

100. Are you disputing the source of the post?

if you have another source that clarifies the facts in question please post it.

[Chulanowa]

101. Say it with me now

"Poison. Balloons."

Fucking really now. I don't know about the source (first I've heard of the place, in fact) but if I'm to judge it by the stories it carries...

Israel attacked Lebanon. With poison balloons. Not like, a dirigible full of chlorine or something else stupid but impressive. But lime-green party balloons.

If you can't see the stupidity of this claim... well then, maybe Shira has more of a point than I've been allowing 'cause... goddamn.

[shira]

104. Depends on the blog or OP-ED, doesn't it? N/T

[shira]

105. Thomas Friedman on constructive vs. destructive criticism of Israel

<snip>

I write about this now because there is something foul in the air. It is a trend, both deliberate and inadvertent, to delegitimize Israel — to turn it into a pariah state, particularly in the wake of the Gaza war. You hear the director Oliver Stone saying crazy things about how Hitler killed more Russians than Jews, but the Jews got all the attention because they dominate the news media and their lobby controls Washington. You hear Britain’s prime minister describing Gaza as a big Israeli “prison camp” and Turkey’s prime minister telling Israel’s president, “When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill.” You see singers canceling concerts in Tel Aviv. If you just landed from Mars, you might think that Israel is the only country that has killed civilians in war — never Hamas, never Hezbollah, never Turkey, never Iran, never Syria, never America.

I’m not here to defend Israel’s bad behavior. Just the opposite. I’ve long argued that Israel’s colonial settlements in the West Bank are suicidal for Israel as a Jewish democracy. I don’t think Israel’s friends can make that point often enough or loud enough.

But there are two kinds of criticism. Constructive criticism starts by making clear: “I know what world you are living in.” I know the Middle East is a place where Sunnis massacre Shiites in Iraq, Iran kills its own voters, Syria allegedly kills the prime minister next door, Turkey hammers the Kurds, and Hamas engages in indiscriminate shelling and refuses to recognize Israel. I know all of that. But Israel’s behavior, at times, only makes matters worse — for Palestinians and Israelis. If you convey to Israelis that you understand the world they’re living in, and then criticize, they’ll listen.

Destructive criticism closes Israeli ears. It says to Israelis: There is no context that could explain your behavior, and your wrongs are so uniquely wrong that they overshadow all others. Destructive critics dismiss Gaza as an Israeli prison, without ever mentioning that had Hamas decided — after Israel unilaterally left Gaza — to turn it into Dubai rather than Tehran, Israel would have behaved differently, too. Destructive criticism only empowers the most destructive elements in Israel to argue that nothing Israel does matters, so why change?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08friedman.html

[whosinpower]

106. The most destructive elements in Israel

snip from your article -

Destructive criticism only empowers the most destructive elements in Israel to argue that nothing Israel does matters, so why change?

Therein lies the pickle.

[shira]

107. Yep, that and "destructive criticism closes Israeli ears". n/t

[shira]

109. AHMED MOUSTAFA: AN EGYPTIAN SCIENTIST'S SUMMER IN ISRAEL

To go or not to go

In 2008, I was invited to spend a summer conducting neuroscience research at both the Hebrew University (Jerusalem) and Al Quds Palestinian University (East Jerusalem /West Bank).

As an Egyptian, I had grown up very cautious about interacting with Israelis; it had never occurred to me to visit Israel. Many other Egyptians and probably many people in other Arab states feel the same way.

Some of my friends in Egypt advised me not to embark on such an “unethical” trip. For many in Egypt, setting foot in Israel is unthinkable, regardless of the purpose of the visit. But the Palestinian professors whom I consulted did not voice such criticism; they encouraged me to visit Israel. My friends in the United States did not make such criticisms either, and I realized that many Americans and Europeans who visit Israel hold different views on Israeli politics, yet they discuss their opinions openly with Israelis.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that regardless of the views my friends and I might have about Israeli politics, the opportunity to gain scientific experience at a good research institution was a separate issue, and nearly at the deadline for making the decision, I decided to accept the invitation to visit Israel.

Time in Israel

As I landed in Israel and went through Israeli customs and security, I had a few a worrisome moments. But my three months in Israel were scientifically enriching and socially rewarding. I spent most of my time at the Hebrew and Al Quds Universities, but I also occasionally visited Haifa University. Both the city and the university in Haifa have large Jewish and Arab populations, and the two groups mix more often than in Jerusalem.

cont'd...
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=7078

[shira]

110. Israel through European Eyes (VERY LONG BUT EXCELLENT)

http://via.readerimpact.com/v/1/792bc4b1ec4cad1e102bfb9bbcc0325c6b7210346658c26c

Every few months, Israel is publicly pilloried in the international media and on university campuses around the world for some alleged violation of human rights, real or imagined. Last month it was over an Israeli raid on a Turkish ship trying to run the blockade on Gaza, which left nine dead after the ship resisted seizure. A few months from now it will be over something else: Perhaps it will be over Israeli action against the Islamic terror state in Gaza, or against the Hizballah army in South Lebanon and its ever-growing mountain of missiles. Perhaps it will be over an Israeli strike on the Iranian or Syrian nuclear programs. Perhaps it will be over the destruction of an Iranian weapons ship at sea. Perhaps it will be over the revelation of an Israeli covert operation in an Arab country or in Europe or elsewhere. Perhaps it will be over an incident in an Israeli jail or at a roadblock in the West Bank. Perhaps it will be over the visit of an Israeli public figure to the Temple Mount, or the purchase and occupancy by Jews of a building in East Jerusalem. Perhaps it will be over something else.

But whatever the ostensible subject, and regardless of whether Israel’s political leaders and soldiers and spokesmen do their work as they should, we know for certain that the consequence of this future incident, a few months from now, will be another campaign of vilification in the media and on the campuses and in the corridors of power—a smear campaign of a kind that no other nation on earth is subjected to on a regular basis. We know we will again see our nation treated not as a democracy doing its duty to defend its people and its freedom, but as some kind of a scourge. We’ll again see everything that’s precious to us, and everything we consider just, trampled before our eyes. We’ll again have to experience the shame of having former friends turn their backs on us, and of seeing Jewish students running to dissociate themselves from Israel, even from Judaism, in a vain effort to retain the favor of digusted peers. And we’ll again feel the bite of the rising anti-Semitic tide, returned after its post-World War II hiatus.


<snip>

No doubt, Israel could always stand to have better policies and better public relations. But my own view is that neither of these otherwise sensible reactions can help improve things, because neither really gets to the heart of what’s been happening to Israel’s legitimacy. Israel’s policies have fluctuated radically over the past 30 or 40 years, being sometimes better, sometimes worse. And the adroitness with which Israel presents its case in the media and through diplomatic channels has, likewise, been sometimes better, sometimes worse. Yet the international efforts to smear Israel, to corner Israel, to delegitimize Israel and drive it from the family of nations, have proceeded and advanced and grown ever more potent despite the many upturns and downturns in Israeli policy and Israeli PR.

Nothing could make this more evident than the Jewish withdrawal from Gaza and the subsequent establishment there of an independent and belligerent Islamic republic 40 miles from downtown Tel Aviv. Israelis and friends of Israel can reasonably be divided on the question of whether this withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, or the parallel withdrawal from the security zone in South Lebanon in 2000, was really in Israel’s interests, and whether the Jewish state is today better off because of them. But one thing about which we can all agree, I think, is that these withdrawals did nothing to stem the tide of hatred and vilification being poured on Israel’s head internationally. Whatever it is that is driving the trend toward the progressive delegitimization of Israel, it is a trend operating more or less without reference to any particular Israeli policy on any given issue.