Tread more carefully

[drdon326]

Unless, of course, Israel is a uniquely special case. That is a hard argument to make. No official figure exists because, shamefully, they have never been counted, but more than 100,000 Iraqis are said to have been killed during and since the 2003 invasion. Russia's war on Chechnya has cost up to 200,000 civilian lives, one in five of the entire population. Since the intifada began five years ago, 3,600 Palestinians have been killed. No one is making excuses for that; every one of those lives lost is a catastrophe. But in a world full of brutalities and mass slaughter, by what logic is Israel reviled as the uniquely heinous culprit, the one state whose civilians are fair game?

Qaradawi's argument is that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian. Israeli women can be called to national service; Israeli children will grow up to be soldiers. The sheikh has ruled that even the unborn Israeli child in the womb is a legitimate target for death, because one day he will wear a uniform.

This ceases to be a political stance; this becomes the demonisation of a people. Only one nation on the planet has no civilians; only one nation must recognise that its children can legitimately be torn apart by nail bombs on buses. Not the Russians for what they have done in Chechnya, nor the Arab Sudanese in Darfur, nor the Americans and British in Iraq, but the Israelis. They are uniquely guilty and therefore less than human, denied the protections afforded to all other human beings.

So when Livingstone offers this as some kind of defence - that Qaradawi is against 9/11 and 7/7, but in favour of "martyrdom operations" against Israeli civilians - I am not comforted. I am fearful of the dark place he has entered.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1536778,00.html

..............................................................

amazing article from an unlikely source.

[lvx35]

1. Israel could do a lot to improve their policies though.

Just like palestinian authority, in fact maybe moreso due to their relative power. I stand by that belief. My opinion is that the conflict with the palestians is fueled by extremists on both sides, and the sooner each government can agree to be a little moderate, the sooner the peace loving people in both places can be a real force against the extremists on both sides.

[Beaver Tail]

2. Dont forget

the 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians who died in 1982 when Israel attacked Lebanon, which happened to be a War of aggression. It was unprovoked.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. And?!

That justifies blowing up Israeli people?!

[Beaver Tail]

6. Nothing justifies it

But to the Palestinians it creates the hate that breads the attacks. If we want terrorism to stop we have to stop participating in it.

[pelsar]

8. Beaver Tail no...BUT.....

your added BUT tends to "put an asterik" on israeli deaths....it translates into a "sure its a shame israelis are killed but in they deserve it because.....

[drdon326]

15. Its called AN ESCAPE CLAUSE !!

similar to the ever present....

"I'm against the terrorism.....BUT,BUT,BUT....."

[pelsar]

11. dont forget....

yes lets not forget that when those russian children were massacred by chechneyan freedom fighters, russian had killled hundreds of thousands of chechnians (funny it doesnt have the same ring of feel, that it does when we mention israel...)

or when the muslim activists killed the British citizens in the tube, lets not forget the British massacres in (pick a spot of past british colonialism...feel free)...nah...here too it doesnt ring as well as when we say israel...

how about when the muslim militants slaughtered over 300+ in madrid..dont forget spains massacre of the Arawaks.....nah here too it just doesnt have the same feel as when we mention israel in connection to killing and massacres......

ok, i've been condionalized..israel and massacres definitly go together....

[eyl]

14. So the repeated

cross-border terrorist attacks (and the "over-border" rocket barrages) on Israelis from Lebanon were "no provocation"?

As for the casualties you cite - around 10,000 were military personnel (ref. wikipedia, I'm trying to track down the primary source). And there was a civil war going on (plus Syrian troops) - your figure includes Arabs killed by other Arabs (or for that matter, Arabs who died fighting on Israel's side)

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Very good piece

Of course had this been posted anywhere else, I am sure we would have already seen the cries of "he was just EXPLAINING it, not JUSTIFYING it" from the Livingstone fans. It is a shame that reading comprehension is so poor nowadays. There is no need to write with nuance, creativity, or flair because it gets lost on the many who cannot understand anything other than "plain 'ol Amurikan English."

[tocqueville]

5. that applies to others too

"this becomes the demonisation of a people. Only one nation on the planet has no civilians; only one nation must recognise that its children can legitimately be torn apart by nail bombs on buses"

Israeli think the same about Palestinians and Arabs in general

US religious right think the same about non-Christians, gays and "liberals" (but don't say it loud)

US neocons think the same about Iraquis or else they wouldn't torture children in their jails...

so all of that is horrible, but it doesn't make the Israeli the ONLY victim in this world, which they have a tendency to believe...

[pelsar]

7. tocqueville....racists are we?

"Israeli think the same about Palestinians and Arabs in general"

jesus H christ......that has got to be one of the most stuiped racist statements that I've come across here in a least the last hour or two.....words fail me, when reading such unadulterated BS......I think the writer who believes such belongs perhaps in a differerent forum more in tune to the KKK perhaps....


ok i made it to the end of the post:
but it doesn't make the Israeli the ONLY victim in this world, which they have a tendency to believe...

unfukinbelievable

[tocqueville]

18. I am not a racist and you live on another planet

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN108A.html

http://www.zmag.org/cohenmideast.htm

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/racism.html

http://www.doublestandards.org/meehan1.html

Israeli Racism by any other name
By Yitzhak Laor
Haaretz

Adar2 28, 5765

It was announced this week that the government plans to stiffen the rules for granting citizenship to non-Jews, through amendments to the law that make it difficult to grant legal status to Palestinians and other foreigners married to Israeli citizens. The prime minister held a special discussion of the issue and decided to establish a committee headed by the interior minister. The Interior Ministry claims that some 55,000 applications for Palestinian family reunification through marriages to Israeli Arabs have been submitted since 1968, and that natural growth increased the "naturalized" population to some 137,000 Arabs - about one-tenth of the Arab minority in Israel.

Less than two years ago, when the government backed down from its intention to make it difficult to grant legal status to Palestinians who married Israeli citizens, because of opposition from the legal advisor to the Knesset, the Knesset Interior Committee held a closed door session. The head of the Shin Bet provided "data about the scope of involvement in terror activity by people who have blue identity cards because of family unification," said Haaretz on July 30, 2003. Then, too, the entire matter sounded dubious. But the discussion was framed in the context of "security" to pass the High Court of Justice. Now they are channeling it into a "discussion of immigration," once again framing it for the High Court's ears. In the background is the constant equation, "what's bad for the Arabs is good for the Jews." Betar Jerusalem's fans screaming their "death to Arabs" slogans are less dangerous than Eiland and Gavison.

(haaretz is of course a known Palestinian magazine - sarcasm)

google "israeli racism" and you'll find interesting information. Avoid any link from arabic sources, they could be biased.

the problem is that in the US controlled media any hint about wrongdoings from Israel suppressed or minimized. European TV channels, pick any show a nuanced picture of the situation, that's the whole difference. You'll never see for example a 16 years old Palestinian stoned to death by Gaza settlers because he was just walking by - in front of passive soldiers.

Unlike Bush's world, we don't believe that the world is either black or white. And not ALL Israelis are racists, many of them DO protest against racism in the Israely society. As in any other country. Which is a good sign.

And it is another fact that the holocaust is used as an excuse

http://www.clal.org/e41.html

Luckily there are plenty of Jews both in Israel and abroad that share my opinion.

So get informed before you tax people as racists because they submit facts that bother you or you don't have heard before.

[Coastie for Truth]

26. Try some "Droit International"

By definition - as an aspect of sovereignty - the conferring or denial of "citizenship" (as that term is used in Customary International Law) has racist aspects and discriminatory aspects.

Louis Henkin - Cases and Mateials on International law

<>

[Coastie for Truth]

9. "Israeli think the same about Palestinians and Arabs in general."

Only one nation on the planet has no civilians; only one nation must recognise that its children can legitimately be torn apart by nail bombs on buses ... Israeli think the same about Palestinians and Arabs in general.

"Israeli think the same about Palestinians and Arabs in general" -- Not the overwhelming majority of Israelis.

That may be what many people THINK Israelis believe. You know - Israelis have horns on their heads - like satanic images--

<>

[tocqueville]

21. maybe not bombs on buses

but it's oK to bomb whole neighbourhoods to target a single terrorist,
to blow up whole family houses because somebody implicated in resistance lived there etc.. etc...

http://counterpunch.org/christison07102004.html

The Problem with Neutrality Between Palestinians and Israel
By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON

A friend recently said that she had come to believe the level of Israeli violence against Palestinians is now so great that a balanced approach to the two sides, the middle way promoted by so many peace groups, has become totally untenable. Another friend, an Israeli American just returned from several months in Israel, witnessed such a level of Israeli violence, not only against Palestinians but even against Israeli protesters, that she committed herself to oppose it. She decided she could no longer "protect my own skin" by simply standing by. "I no longer cared about protecting myself". She put her life in danger on behalf of justice for the Palestinians.

These two friends have recognized and are strongly protesting the sham of taking a neutral position between the two sides in this most unbalanced of conflicts. Neutrality in any conflict in which there is a gross imbalance of power is probably an impossibility and certainly immoral. Treading a middle path between one utterly powerless party and another party with total power, effectively removes all restraints on behavior by the powerful party. Yet this is the posture of those American peace groups that put themselves forward as advocates for Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation. They take no position between the Palestinians and Israel, but only promote peace plans such as the unofficial Geneva Accord. without also taking action or even speaking out forcefully against Israel's occupation. The consequence is that these groups have given Israel the time and the license to devastate the land, begin its ethnic cleansing, and destroy any prospect for Palestinian independence. Their refusal to take a clear stand against Israel's oppressive policies is a statement that might makes right, that oppressive policies are acceptable, and most particularly that justice for Palestinians is less important than power for Israel.

Kathleen Christison, a former CIA political analyst, has been a freelance writer since resigning from the CIA in 1979, dealing primarily with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Her book Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy was published in 2001. A second book, The Wound of Dispossession: Telling the Palestinian Story, was published in 2002. They can be reached at: [e-mail]

[drdon326]

16. "Israeli think the same about Palestinians and Arabs in general"

and it stands.

Someone remind me what forum we are on again ?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tocqueville]

19. They are not just a few...

Extremists are just a few, I can give you that. But it creates waves of hate and racism in entire populations. And governments turn a blind eye to that, as long it is mainly contained, so they don't lose voters. It applies on both sides.

Extremists express what some parts of the population think, or else they would never get into the position of expressing it and at the same time refuel the hatred, creating new extremists. And extremists can get into power or radically change the course of events (like the murder of Rabin).

Of course the sweeping use of "Israeli", "Arabs" or whatever nationality is not adequate since it puts everybody in the same bag,
and I made that mistake and apologize for it. But at the same time denying that WHOLE parts of populations - because of respective suffering and lack of information - behave in a racistic manner is turning a blind eye to reality.

[pelsar]

23. tocqueville....

to be as eloquent as possible: youdontknow sheet about the israeli population, what they think, nor feel towards "arabs" as your description of 'whole parts of populations:....what does that mean? the use of the word "whole" sounds like a lot....i personally have absolutly no idea what your talking about or how many.....nor do you understand what drives the settler.....

sometimes its better to ask questions that just "jump in with opinions" which well, seem be missing information....

[tocqueville]

27. I just watch TV and read articles

Haaretz included

On 21 June, the Israeli press published the results of an opinion poll that confirms Israel's victorious march to apartheid. The survey, conducted in May by the National Security Studies Centre at the University of Haifa, polled 1,016 respondents from all sectors of the population, including Arabs, Jews, settlers, religious conservatives and new immigrants. It revealed that a majority of the Jewish public in Israel -- approximately 64 per cent -- believes that their government should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate from Israel. In other words, a majority of Israelis would support a policy of "transfer", as the Israelis would put it. The survey leaves it up to our imagination what exactly "encourage" might entail; what means might be called into play to persuade the Arabs to be "encouraged".

In addition, approximately 55 per cent of the Jews polled believe that Arab citizens of Israel endangered national security, 48.6 per cent felt that the government was overly sympathetic to the Arab population (this being the Sharon government, which is notoriously discriminatory against Arabs in all areas of life), 45.3 per cent said that they supported revoking Israeli Arabs' right to vote and hold political office. Nearly 80 per cent of the Jewish respondents supported the policy of "focused killings" (read: assassination) in Arab territories and about one-quarter said that they would consider voting for an ultra-nationalist party like Kach if such a party were to field itself in the next elections. Kach, we recall, is that party founded by the fascist Rabbi Meir Kahane who called for the forced expulsion of Arabs from Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The party was outlawed in 1994, not, in our opinion, because of its flagrant racism but because of the threat it posed to the rightwing party system.

Not that racism in Israel is anything new. Just to refresh our memory, let's take a look at some earlier studies. On 12 March 2002, Haaretz released the results of a poll conducted by the Yaffe Centre for Strategic Studies, according to which 46 per cent of Israeli Jews supported the "transfer" of Arabs from the occupied territories and 31 per cent supported applying the policy to Arab Israelis. This figure alone would seem to put paid to the contention that the rise in racism in Israel indicated by the Haifa institute's survey is due to the "security" factor, since the "security danger" has decreased significantly since the Yaffe Center’s poll. According to that poll, too, 61 per cent of the Jewish respondents felt that Israeli Arabs posed a threat to security. How do we explain the drop in the ratio of respondents who felt that the Israeli Arabs endangered Israel and the simultaneous rise in the numbers calling for their expulsion? What factors account for these inverse trajectories? Finally, in the same poll, 60 per cent of Jewish respondents supported "encouraging" Arab citizens of Israel to emigrate.

Another poll confirmed the rising tide of the ultra religious right and its antagonism to the established concept of citizenship in a democratic society. 80 per cent of those polled in a survey in March 2002 opposed the participation of Arab Israelis in any "critical decisions affecting the state", as opposed to 75 per cent of those polled in 2001, 67 per cent in 2000 and 50 per cent in 1999 (Haaretz, 12 March 2002). An Israeli prime minister was assassinated against the backdrop of seething anti-Arab hatred. Yet, in spite of the fact that Rabin was killed because he brought Arab MPs on board to create the majority that approved the Oslo accords, statistics indicate that the Israelis have not yet absorbed the lesson of that tragedy. The upswing of the anti- democratic right in Israel manifests itself in small things that draw little attention.

By: Dr. Azmi Bishara*
*Member of the Israeli Knesset from Nazareth. He is heading the National Democratic Coalition “Balad".

OK maybe Bishara is biased

but are the Haaretz polls too ?

[pelsar]

34. funny thing about israel.....and using one source.....

our polls never seem to pan out...according to those stats....the israeli arabs must feel hated, threatend by the jewish israelis...yet if you talk with them...they dont.

and that 25% will vote ultra right...been said before and never happens...

and that doesnt coincide with the majority wanting to pull out of gaza and the westbank....

the conclusion: The upswing of the anti- democratic right in Israel

is quite flaky since by pulling out of gaza the "right" is not in the upswing but losing both votes and support

thats why it helps to ask before throwing out sterile information....its easy to find contradictions between polls and actions on the ground....

.......polls in the middle east tend to show extreme views for reason of culture...if you want you can check out the palestenian polls where 70 to 80 percent of Palestinian children aspire to shahada .....90% (during certain periods) want the suicide bombers to continue.....and yet they dont....very very few actually do become shahada

[Coastie for Truth]

24. Caephus and Pontius Pilate were madmen, extremists and quislings

(if the Gospel of John is historically correct, which has been questioned). But we have borne the "Mark of Caephus and Pontius Pilate" for two millenia.

And Mel Gibson has doubled his fortune through the "Mark of Caephus and Pontius Pilate"

Council of Nicea
Branding the Ebionites "Heretics"
Crusades
Blame for the Black Death
Inquisition
Merchant of Venice
Kidnapping and forced conversion of Jewish children (Edgardo Mortara)
Numerous Clausus
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
L'affaire Dreyfus
Oliver Twist
Holocaust
and on and on and on

Tocqueville- you can believe John's story of the Betrayal, Trial, and Crucifixion -- and ignore John VIII:1-11.

What Good does it all do you as long as you mark with the "Mark of Caephus and Pontius Pilate" - while ignoring Chechnya and Kosovo and Bosnia and the Expulsion of Muslims from Andalusia, and Algeria and DienBienPhu.

You keep John XIX in your heart and ignore John VIII:1-11.

Cafeteria Xtians.

[tocqueville]

28. Frankly I don't give a f*ck about Gibson

and his right wing "Christian" anti-semitic racism

clear enough ?

[Coastie for Truth]

29. I do because I am marked

with the "Mark of Caephus and Pilate"

[tocqueville]

30. It's clear that it was the Romans who executed Jesus

"Tacitus, "The Annals of Imperial Rome" Book XV.42: But neither human resources, nor imperial munificence, nor appeasment of the gods, eliminated sinister suspicions that the fire had been instigated. To suppress this rumor, Nero fabricated scapegoats - and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christus, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the procuratorem* of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital."

The rest is fairy tales. The Church needed a scapegoat and invented the story of Pilatus "washing his hands" and being "convinced" by the Jews (and the crowd) to execute Jesus and not Barabbas.

[Coastie for Truth]

31. That's not what the Crusaders or Cossacks or NYC Street Toughs say

and until Pope John XXIII ,,,,

and millions of innocents have paid.

[tocqueville]

32. that's why Gibson's film is so dangerous

and in a strange way extremist Christians rejoin extremist Muslims in blaming everything on the Jews though for different reasons.

[Coastie for Truth]

33. A lot of otherwise Good people of Good Faith

carry the message of Gibson's film - and of the telling of the Betrayal, Trial, and Crucifixion in their subconscious

[Monkie]

25. i'm glad you apologised for the generalisation because i was not defending

that.

"Extremists express what some parts of the population think, or else they would never get into the position of expressing it"

That is a REALLY good point, but to translate that into generalisations is still dangerous and wrong in my view.

[drdon326]

20. I think I will hold my tongue......

for now.

[Monkie]

22. the thing is you ask these loaded questions and make provocative statement

and i try to engage you on that.
I try to engage you on the factual accuracies of the articles,the inherent hypocrisy,i point to history.
and then,you hold your tongue,and post another article in the same vein with the same points made in the same provocative aggressive and confrontational way.
I know i am quite ruthless, and understand my statements are displeasing to you (and some others who i most certainly do NOT wish to offend or confront) but the only option i see is to alert EVERY single original post you make and many of the subsequent statements you make until you are challenged in the thread.
Because when the positions you post are challenged like this the silence is deafening.
I takes quite some effort to engage the position you take and espouse without using language in a way that can be taken personally but i am REALLY trying.
I dont want to repeatedly confront the position you are advocating,i far from enjoy it.
I hope you understand what i mean.
You just cant act without a reaction,especially when you take a position that is not mainstream,or not considered so by those that challenge that position.
Defending that position by posting another opinion piece and not factually responding to the critiques made is to create a vicious cycle.
I know i am playing a part in that, but the alternative is to open this forum and see post after post by you of unchallenged generalized agitation against muslims and arabs.
This puts me in a difficult position as i dont want to alert when i can engage,cause alerting hides the problem in my view and the danger in that seems obvious to me,and if it isnt please enlighten me.

[newyorican]

10. Oops, I Killed You, Again

The difference, the Western world tells us, between them and us Muslims is that when they kill, they do not really mean it. They raise themselves superior to us, professing their innocence when civilians die at their hands, declaring it to be a tragedy worth its price. And even as they grind out an apology at times, it is followed by either a ‘there was a terrorist among them’, ‘we are in difficult times’ or ‘if the terrorists had not attacked us on 9/11, none of this would have ever happened’.

-snip-

That is why they condemn a desperate man who straps explosives to his chest for killing soldiers occupying and destroying his nation; it is barbaric and evil. Does he not know the code of ethics for killing?

Step 1: identify a terrorist’s description, like the cops do; in today’s age, it would be ‘Asian-looking, suspicious, bearded, Muslim’; sorry, not the last bit.

Step 2: pinpoint his location; if he is alone, targeted assassination will do, and if not alone, it will still do.

Step 3: choose from an array of weapons and means of delivery according to the impact desired – F-16 fighter jet, Apache or a bunker buster? Remember, the only thing to focus on is ensuring the target is hit; all other collateral damage is insignificant.

-snip-

However, if a Muslim or a Muslim country happens to copy their antics, you will never hear the end of it. There will be a cycle of cries, vigils, demands, frowns, sanctions, diplomatic moves, condemnations, conferences that will keep on going on and on. That is because Muslims are terrorists and you want to know why? They do not say sorry after killing a person.

read full article

--------------------------------

Somewhat over the top, but there is a valid point here.

[pelsar]

12. no it doesnt...

whats so hard to understand?...one group actively looks to kill children, celebrates in their death and teachs how wonderful it is to kill "the other" (us in the west commonly refer to that as a war crime....)

the second group, when possible, attempts to seperate those involved and those not...something not always possible when then foe refuses to wear an indentifying uniform, lives in mixed areas and generally uses the civilian population as a vast human shield.

I actually find it rather disgusting when I am accused of being like a terrorist who kills anybody they can, preferable those who arent even involved in the conflict directly......(take note of the vast number of iraqi suicide bombers....they're targeting and killing iraqis not the occupyers)

[geek tragedy]

13. How many soldiers were killed at the Sbarro's or the seder dinner?

Let's not also forget that more victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslim than infidel.

[bennywhale]

35. Not that unlikely of a source. If you look regularly you may

find a lot you agree with and find interesting and a lot you obviously disagree with. The guardian is not a partizan paper.

One reason i think is the attention on the area due to what it is. The holiest of holy lands for the 3 major religions of the middle east and the west, and that is where it is reported. Also because of the open ended ongoing nature of the conflict means everyone is instantly familiar with it where as eg chechnya is covered more by documentary.

But i agree with the chechnya point particularly. I think Putin is a mass murderer who should be in the hague. Chechnya is probably the most brutalised nation on earth and has been for a century.