ISRAEL;WHEN WILL THE WEST DO SOMETHING... PART II

[UCM]

Here goes....

I can't remember which poster it was who said that he or she knows Jewish people who take their children's Star of David off when they visit London ?

It reminds me of Muslim friends I have who are increasingly worried about wearing Islamic dress (since the London bombings) in case they are subjected to a racist attack.

look up semitic on wikipedia. it is fascinating: christianity, islam and judaisim are semitic religions and ' Y-chromosomal links between Near-Eastern peoples like the Palestinians, Syrians and ethnic Jews have proved fruitful, despite differences contributed from other groups (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Although population genetics is still a young science, it seems to indicate that a significant proportion of these peoples' ancestry comes from a common Near Eastern population to which (despite the differences with the Biblical genealogy) the term Semitic has been applied.'

they are all of the same tribe.

A Jewish guy i worked with was telling me about Isaac and Ishmael, the two half brothers, sons of Abraham. Ishmael became the forefather of Islam, according to him. Correct me if I am wrong anybody, but it does seem to correlate with the genealogy as Sophable described it.

Caligula, the reason I thought pd's post inflamatory are as follows:

1. As far as I can tell from searching "palestinians beach" in the BBC web site and on Sky news, both name only Huda Ghalya as a survivor:

Here is the Skynews article from June 10th

and here is the to the BBC article (same date)

As far as I can tell without being able to access the Galloway source pd refers to (because it's not posted), there is the same amount of 'naming' in the two sources.

That does not seem to support pd's claim that "Israel's supporters like Murdoch think that Israeli blood is more valuable than Arab blood".

It also obviously does not support pd's statement that "Skynews does not know the name of even one of seven Palestinians slaughtered on the beach by Israel" (Neither of the two news agencies posted them as far as I can see !)

2. I typed 'kidnapped soldiers' into the two sites, and I can't find in either any kind of detailed bio about them. One name crops up, that of Cpl Gilad Shalit, and skynews seems to have 11 hits with the name (none of the pages seemed to have detailed info from a cursory examination - I'm not going to spend all night on this !) whilst the BBC has 11 pages of hits, including articles with statements from the soldier's father.

I don't think that supports the claim that "Skynews...remembers fondly the name and family history of every one of the three Israeli soldier that has been taken prisoner." (Apologies if I've missed a section of their site btw).

3. Finally, from my searches, it looks like a certain amount of uncertainty still surrounds the beach explosion... it has been suggested that the shell which exploded was not an Israeli shell but possibly a Palestinian shell, and (whether this is correct or incorrect), this possibility is conveniently not highlighted. (See this article initially, and read some comments in this BBC article as a follow on for example).

Now, you might think I'm just being a finnickety pillock, but my point is a seemingly innocent post actually contains multiple potential layers of misinformation and that is before I even bother exploring the possible hidden significance in specifying Murdoch-controlled (ie. Jewish-controlled media). I think Murdoch is Jewish but I'm not actually sure . Anyway, you get my drift.

I think this is going to be my last entry on this thread as it takes up a very large amount of my free time to research / contemplate / post and I can't continue to devote the required time to this activity.

My message is simple, as I posted before: "I'm on this thread, to highlight the fact that there are two sides to the debate and to express my upset at some of the sentiments that had been expressed. I have no wish (nor a deep enough understanding) to attempt to argue a position for either side"

pd dismissed this with "I thought it was obvious there are at least two sides to the debate. It does not take a rocket scientist (not that rocket science is much complex) to decipher that."

I would disagree. I think it takes a particular modesty and readiness to consider points of view one might not be very comfortable with. It is actually very hard to put yourselves in others' positions.

(Soph - phenomenal field and all that )

I know at times I've been horribly pedantic, but I hope it has been useful.

Happy 'correct' debating everyone.

Shalom.

(That post took me bl00dy hours. Please read it ! )

h2d my post was not confrontational.

I told you I make a distinction between Jews, Israel and Zionism, and I explained the difference.

Here are links to some blogs:

jointvoices

beirutlive

arabisraelipeace

Sorry I did not post the Galloway interiew link. Here it is:

Galloway interview

hi pd - you need 'www' before your URLs:

first

Second

Third

They are very interesting links. Great to read first-hand comments etc. IYSWIM.

Thanks for the video link which I watched. Hmmm.

Anyway, I think you'll find that if you read each of the points I make very carefully, I have addressed your post regarding his (your ?) claim in a quite stupid amount of detail showing the allegation doesn't seem to hold up on examination. If you can dig around more on the sites to show where my findings come short, I'd be interested.

Hub - I have read your posts carefully. Very interesting.

I know you are getting off this thread - but a last word from me too - there is no doubt that certain TV stations, newspapers, other sources, tend to be in favour of one "side" or the other. There are very few that have no bias whatsoever. They are written and researched by humans, not machines, so of course some emotion gets into them as well.

Murdoch is well-known for his position re. the Arab-Israeli conflicts and has a generally right-wing stance re. other issues. Whether he is Jewish or not is irrelevant really.

The particular incident on the beach may not be as black and white as indicated by PD, but I don't think it requires wild imagination or adherance to any kind of conspiracy theory to say that Murdoch is generally pro-Isreal, Fox News is pro-Bush/Israel, the Guardian is pro-Palestinian, the FT is generally very balanced and clinical, etc.

Of course within this range, you also have papers that are very extreme to the point of being fanatical and others that just show a mild leaning to one side or the other

I am not an expert on media studies, but perhaps someone who is could comment ?

As for the common racial background of Arabs and Jews, someone told me that even the two languages (Arabic and Hebrew) have an enourmous amount in common. They are both semitic languages and have simialr roots !

hi mimo, yes, I am trying to leave. I also appreciate the tendency for a media to have a pov, a particular slant etc.

The reason I highlighted / challenged the 'Murdoch' reference is because I feel one could have made the same claims against the BBC (which isn't Jewish owned, assuming I am right in understanding Murdoch is Jewish), but it wasn't. As I demonstrated, they appear to have similar coverage IYSWIM. (Except of course that Skynews gave Galloway a rather long time slot to present his views ! Which kind of goes against the bias pd / Galloway claims, but anyway).

So whether I am right, or just being peculiarly sensitive (which is possible), I am not sure it was relevant IYSWIM - why not just say 'Skynews' (I know I am labouring over minutae, but hey ho).

Further, I feel the claim insults wrt to the sanctity of life, and as I hope I've made clear, I think that is too important to rubbish away in an over-simplification. Finally, I agree the beach incident doesn't appear black and white, which is why when I try and debate / analyse some of the posts made on the thread I'll go to such great lengths to try an point out the 'second side' IYSWIM. It can be easy to miss !

Doubtless the thread will now meander into media bias...

Enjoy !

hub - I have to agree that the BBC isn't perfect, but there really is no comparison between say Murdoch's Fox News and the BBC.

I thought people might be interested in the following quotes from Murdoch (I have actually resorted to wiki for once as it has quotes I couldn't find elsewhere), I am particularly fond of the last quote

Murdoch quotes:
"We can't back down now, where you hand over the whole of the Middle East to Saddam...I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly, and I think he is going to go on with it" [9] (3rd paragraph on page, as reported by UK Newspaper The Guardian)

"The greatest thing to come out of this [war in Iraq] for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." [10] (4th paragraph on page)

"News ? communicating news and ideas, I guess ? is my passion. And giving people alternatives so that they have two papers to read (and) alternative television channels." (in "The Hollywood Reporter" November 14, 2005) [11]

"In this country, Fox News has gotten a big, big audience that appreciates its independence. There's passion there, and it's pushed. ... It has taken a long time, but it has now changed CNN because it has challenged them ? they've become more centrist in their choice of stories. They're trying to become, using our phrase, more fair and balanced." (in "The Hollywood Reporter" November 14, 2005) [12]

"My ventures in media are not as important to me as spreading my personal political beliefs" (in "The Hollywood Reporter" November 23, 2005) [13]

hub - enjoy your rest from this thread !

God Murdoch's scary. When people say people have got more "centrist" what they mean is, they've got more right wing.

Caligula - notice also he says the "greatest thing" to come out of the Iraq war is the huge increase in oil prices !

No mention then of crippling the Iraqi economy for decades to come or putting its oil wealth into the pockets of pro-Bush oil companies ?

Cheers Rupert !

I did read that Murdoch's news international corporation was going to offer Blair a lucrative job of some sort come his resignation ( although dh swears Blair will only leave no10 kicking and screaming...) what the f**k happened to old Labour and their values?

Tony and Rupert have a lot in common. I can just imagine Tony broadcasting on Fox News, at least lets hope they both keep away from public office !

just one thing, h2d

I didn't know that Murdoch is a Jew. It doesn't and shouldn't matter. Sky is Murdoch, and Fox is Murdoch, so I chose to refer to him, but if it eases your mind, I will substitute my reference to Murdoch with Sky and Fox.

If he is Jewish then maybe he carries with him that subconcious fear of the suffering of the Jews which has been talked of earlier, but as I said then, there coems a time when such fears should not become the defining factor in a people's behaviour, and most certainly not a state's.

Perhaps you are being unduly sensitive.

If you as a psychologist don't see it, what hope is there for scigrad righties?

hi pd, point taken, but it doesn't change the fact that if you actually examine the evidence it doesn't support your claim (as per my rather long post).

Wiki: "subconscious ... is considered to be the deepest level of consciousness, that individuals are not directly aware of, but still affects conscious behavior"

I understand your "subconcious fears motivates Jewish behaviour" theory, but there's one problem with it; 'subconcious' implies that individual action is determined / triggered by emotions and fears of which they are unaware. I put it to you, that especially with years of continued attempted and 'successful' suicide attacks as well as incoming rocket attacks, Israeli Jews are fully concious of the realities of the violence they face.

I don't think I'm being unduly sensitive - you made an assertion in your post which didn't hold up to analysis, that's all. But if a scigrad rightie can't even see that, what hope has an arty farty psychologist ?

OK, h2d, can you see it in terms of occupation and colonialism, or will you insist this has to be in terms of Jews/non-Jews.

Could you clarify the 'it,' pd ?

'It' means the conflict in the ME, the killings and the bombings there.

hub - if I may come back to the thread again, I think PD raises an interesting point.

I think what I am trying to understand is this, and I copy and paste because I am too lazy to type it, you say: "with years of continued attempted and 'successful' suicide attacks as well as incoming rocket attacks, Israeli Jews are fully concious of the realities of the violence they face".

Point taken.

I don't think any one here has denied that Israeli civilians face violence or that anti-semitism is alive and well in many parts of the world. The questions that bother me most are as follows:

1. do the attacks against Israeli civilians and a small number of soldiers (horrific BUT small-scale compared to the vengenace coming down on the heads of the Lebanese nation) JUSTIFY the deliberate destruction of an entire neighbouring country ? UN officials have reported that more than 1/3 of the dead in Lebanon are children. Is this necessary when Israel keeps telling us that they are only targetting Hizbollah and given the fact that the UN and other human rights orgs. have said that Hizbollah were not hidding in those basements ? Humantarian aid to Southern Lebanon is now completely blocked off, is this necessary ?

2. do you accept that the Arabs in the region (both Muslim and Christian) are also "fully concious of the realities of the violence THEY face" from Israel and that therefore they need a means of defending themselves against what they see (and other countries, even non-Arab ones and human right's orgs. also see) as Israeli heavy-handedness for the past 60 years ?

3. Israel has nuclear weapons as well as one of the best armed conventional forces in the world and most importantly is backed by the US. The Arabs and Iran have no nuclear capability and most sensible analysts know that even if they try to acquire it they will be stopped (look at Iraq - it has been destroyed for WMD it didn't possess). Do you see any imbalance in this power structure which is heavily favoured towards Israel ?

4. I am aware that anti-semitism is alive in many parts of the world. However, do you accept that Muslims also face prejudice and hate attacks in many parts of the world, even though the vast majority are innocent law abiding civilians ? Do you think that it is justified that Islamophobia should exist because of the actions of a few people who happen to be Muslims ?

5. do you believe that liberal Jews (I am not talking about the members of any kind of religious sect) who criticise Israel and who are not in favour of Zionism are anti-semitic ?

I would be interested in your replies. Others here have failed to answer them, I hope you will consider them carefully and reply. Of course I am more than happy to reply to any of your questions if you have any !

hi pd - every time I seem to answer your point / refute your logic (as I have done with your Israeli blood / Arab blood post and a pile of posts before - yours and others), you seem intent to move the discussion in a slightly different direction so that you don't have to address the points I (carefully) raise. (IMHO). . It's seems an odd way to try to learn from each other.

mimo - I can guarantee you I am sooo not the best person to answer your questions, but I'll make a few points:

1. I am sure both sides have suffered greatly in the run up to the conflict. One parent losing one child is terrible - can you imagine losing your own ? It doesn't bear thinking about does it ? Now, you may think this is naïve, but I don't think Israel is setting about the deliberate killing of civilians. Firstly, it does not enhance their military strategy (destroy Hezbollah) and secondly it's terrible PR, so I believe they are probably attacking sites where rockets have been stockpiled, seen or launched from. Further, as was seen with the Qana incident, when Israel thinks it got things very wrong, it investigates and apologises. It tends to regret those deaths IYSWIM. You might think the apology is useless / insulting / farcical... but on the other hand you don't see Hezbollah terrorists apologising for taking out Israeli schols / hospitals / homes etc.... BECAUSE IT IS THEIR STATED AIM. I think that is a significant difference.

(Sorry, don't know anything about the blocking of aid. That sounds pointlessly unnecessary to me although I did read a week or two ago some roads were targetted as they were thought to be routes by which weapons would be transported / deployed to new launch sites etc. so perhaps that is the reason ?).

2. I have no doubt at all the Arabs in the region have felt / been exposed to violence too. FWIW, I imagine Israel feels it has been agressed for 60 years... (goes back to the vicious circle I mentioned about 300 posts ago ).

3. I agree Israel has significant US backing, but if you want to talk about power imbalances (in dimensions other than military funding), just look at a map to see the size of Israel (sq miles, population, natural resources) compared to its close neighbours. Power exists in many forms.

4. Yep, I accept Islamophobia exists as does anti-semitism. No, nothing justifies it.

5. No. I think that escapes (my) definition.

Hope that helps.

h2d, I don't think it is moving the discussion in a diferent direction as such. Let me reproduce the three latest posts before your accusation of moving:

By peacedove on Wednesday, 9 August, 2006 3:24:21 PM'It' means the conflict in the ME, the killings and the bombings there.

By hub2dee on Wednesday, 9 August, 2006 3:05:59 PMCould you clarify the 'it,' pd ?

By peacedove on Wednesday, 9 August, 2006 2:56:16 PMOK, h2d, can you see it in terms of occupation and colonialism, or will you insist this has to be in terms of Jews/non-Jews.
___

you wanted a clarification of what I meant by 'it', and I gave you that expecting a straightforward answer which would have made it clearer where you were coming from.

pd - LOL - I'm not talking about the 'it' clarification, I'm talking about the lack of reaction to my post concerning the skynews / Arab vs. Israeli blood / Beach victims vs. soldier profiles. All you did was clarify the naming of Murdoch instead of Skynews. My findinds still stand, and your statement didn't seem to hold up IYSWIM. I explained this in my 2:26 post.

yes, talking about blood being valuable is not helpful and pd, you are being mildly obtuse.

However, hub - c'mon. "as was seen with the Qana incident, when Israel thinks it got things very wrong, it investigates and apologises." ? no they didn't. they investigated, but they still kept coming out with crap about "defending themselves". Now, I agree that they don't target civilians in the same way that Hizbullah does (I posted that very argument on the other thread in fact), but they don't go to any great lengths to avoid bombing civilians and have deliberately bombed hospitals, water treatment plants and aid supply routes. they really don't have the moral high ground that they think they have imo.