Israel

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Israeli novelist Amos Oz, a famous critic of the Israeli occupation and founder of “Peace Now,” explained in an interview with Germany's Deutsche Welle why he supports the war. "The only way to repel aggression is unfortunately by force,” he said.

“A relative of mine who survived the Nazi Holocaust in Theresienstadt always reminded her children and her grandchildren that her life was saved in 1945 not by peace demonstrators with placards and flowers but by Soviet soldiers and submachine guns,” he added

In famously argumentative Israel, near total support for Gaza offensive
 
What I would take away from the above quote and claim in general is that it makes little sense to base current foreign policy on events of 70 years ago.
 
What I would take away from the above quote and claim in general is that it makes little sense to base current foreign policy on events of 70 years ago.

Well, as they are trying to burn down synagogues in France to demonstrate, no doubt, their "pro-peace" credentials with the (cough, splutter) Religion of Peace I'd argue, sadly, that events of 70 years ago are as relevant as ever.
 
Well put. And in order to get a balanced view on that situation, it must be acknowledged that opposition to Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism. I think that equation is still prominent in US political discourse and needs to be abandoned. That's not to say that anti-Semitism has disappeared or is unimportant, but rather that there are numerous reasons to criticize Israel that have nothing to do with the Jewish element.

Frankly, the people who scream "anti-Semitism!!!" at the mildest critique of Israel and throw the term around inappropriately are just helping to obscure the identification of actual anti-Semitism.
 
It's pretty much a shitty situation from either side. I can't really judge as I don't know enough on the situation, but I don't think in a situation this big there is only one party at fault.

Well, one of the sides perpetually steals land off the other side, gets into apartheid mode with the wall and decides to unleash disproportionate "self defense" genocidal attacks upon on a regular basis. (much like the last time, one of the sides is in two-digit casualty count. the other one was past 1000 on 26 July)

Yet they are continually surprised when the other side fights back after years of de facto occupation.
 
The current support for Gaza stems from the deliberate butchering of children by Israel. Those who are aware of it (far too few, unfortunately, due to the incredibly biased mainstream media coverage) are horrified, repulsed and nauseated by it. Playing the anti-Semitism card here is, frankly, as disgusting as it is moronic.
 
Well, one of the sides perpetually steals land off the other side, gets into apartheid mode with the wall and decides to unleash disproportionate "self defense" genocidal attacks upon on a regular basis. (much like the last time, one of the sides is in two-digit casualty count. the other one was past 1000 on 26 July)

Yet they are continually surprised when the other side fights back after years of de facto occupation.


Sadly, the other side perpetually launches rocket attacks it knows are mostly ineffective in causing casualties, except for getting its own people killed (which is good PR for its own cause), uses whatever money it gets its hands on to buy weapons instead of improving the living conditions of its own people.

Yet, they keep on fooling many when the other side fights back after yet another massive rocket assault.

What I maybe consider the saddest to get from the post I quoted and my reply, both are basically correct. :(

Another thought that popped in my head the past couple of days, what is the situation like in the West Bank? I read today that a person tried to assault an Israeli bus with a bulldozer. And tension has risen in the West Bank. But considering the situation in Gaza (and that much more of the land-stealing is/was in the West Bank and not in Gaza) I have the feeling it's much more quiet there. And a large part of it is likely the difference between Hamas and Fatah.
 
Sadly, the other side perpetually launches rocket attacks it knows are mostly ineffective in causing casualties, except for getting its own people killed (which is good PR for its own cause), uses whatever money it gets its hands on to buy weapons instead of improving the living conditions of its own people.
You could also argue that Hamas wouldn't have risen to power if Israel hadn't put nearly 2 million people in a prison. What do you expect to happen?

It's extremely difficult to form a nuanced opinion on this matter as there is so much history though. It's just one big mess. There doesn't seem to be a solution either. The public perception is definitely turning against Israel which is good I think.
 
I loved this response by Peter Schwartz to an open letter by Brian Eno on the situation and Israel's bombardment. It's not a black & white issue, this world hardly ever is, but way too many people feel it's easier to get complacent:

Peter Schwartz responds to Brian Eno's open letter on Israel-Gaza crisis - Comment - Voices - The Independent

I believe that article originates from here (which also includes the Brian Eno letter/post).
David Byrne - Gaza and the Loss of Civilization

I agree with Irvine, it is a very good read.
 
I would say my views in line with Peter Schwartz's. I don't understand why so many academics call for an intellectual boycott of Israel yet not Russia or say Saudi Arabia, with the latter being one of the main sponsor's of terrorism around the world.

As I have probably said before, anti-Semitism is the bridge that can often unite the left and right in politics.

That said I don't see how this current situation benefits Israel. It seems remarkably short term in view and plays into Hamas' hands creating more Martyrs' and more willing join Hamas' cause.

Bah it just seems mental that the west is selling weapons to the Saudi's (who help Hamas out) and Israel, fueling war and strife in a region that does not need it. It is a mess wee continue to tinker with to no good effect.
 
I loved this response by Peter Schwartz to an open letter by Brian Eno on the situation and Israel's bombardment. It's not a black & white issue, this world hardly ever is, but way too many people feel it's easier to get complacent:

Peter Schwartz responds to Brian Eno's open letter on Israel-Gaza crisis - Comment - Voices - The Independent

This is an interesting read, but I have trouble with the idea that one has to be aware and critical of all global human rights abuses in order justifiably to criticize Israel.

Also the idea/implication that the history of the region needs to be front and center to current perspectives is not something I can support. The USA's many entanglements with the creation of Israel is no reason for unequivocal support in the present day.
 
Calgary—city of swastikas and ‘Heil Hitler!’

photo_841.jpg

By Arthur Weinreb August 4, 2014 | Comments| Print friendly |
16


weinreb080414.jpg
Last Friday night, swastikas, most of them backwards, were painted on at least five houses in Calgary SE. And, as in the case of the July 18 pro-Palestinian demonstration where the cops failed to show up while a family of pro-Israel demonstrators were punched, kicked, knocked to the ground and had their Israeli flags stolen, the police have once again downplayed what happened.



While anti-Semitic graffiti can and does appear in a lot of places throughout Canada and the world, once again it is the position of the Calgary Police Service and the local media that once again is telling

Calgary—city of swastikas and ‘Heil Hitler!’
 
Sadly, the other side perpetually launches rocket attacks it knows are mostly ineffective in causing casualties, except for getting its own people killed (which is good PR for its own cause), uses whatever money it gets its hands on to buy weapons instead of improving the living conditions of its own people.

Yep. Agree with this analysis.
 
Argument about the foundation of state of Israel 'unfounded'

Monday, August 04, 2014
IsraelTanksatGazaBorder19July14_large.jpg



Victoria White’s inflammatory column ‘We are washing our hands of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (July 31), uses the revisionist interpretation of Ilan Pappe to depict the founding of Israel in 1948 as an imposed Nakba (catastrophe) on the indigenous Palestinian Arabs of the era.
She dismisses the work of empirical historians who treat the foundation of the state in an objective manner, by subtly accusing them of supporting the “founding lies” of Israel.
No further reference is made to exactly what lies these are, so one must presume she is referring to the tragedy of the Holocaust. Yet if this is so, what is wrong with that? Our State was founded in large part on the memory of a Famine which was depicted by Irish politicians and academics as a deliberate withering of the population by the British. This continues to the present day, with works like Tim Pat Coogan’s The Famine Plot.
However, since the 1960s, Irish revisionists like Cormac Brady, Christine Kineally, and Gerard MacAtasney have challenged this once-accepted orthodoxy to impart a far more nuanced interpretation of the prevailing political and social forces. Yet none of these eminent professional historians dismissed the possibility that the nascent Irish State’s use of the Famine was a founding lie, instead, and unlike Pappe, they accept it as a valid foundational tool of nascent state building. Why therefore, does White not afford Israel the same leeway?
As a historian, I find her over-reliance on one specific work, Pappe’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, simplistic, there is no attempt to cross-reference his sources thus, her argument is inherently a weak one. Marginalising Israel does not help the work of the expert conflict resolutionists who are diligently working behind the scenes. Their job is difficult enough without having to deflect the highly emotive rhetoric of individuals like White, success will come only if a reasoned and objective approach is initiated, one which is mature enough to admit the wrongs committed by both sides.
Dr Kevin McCarthy
Seán Hales Terrace
Kinsale
Co Cork

© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved


Argument about the foundation of state of Israel 'unfounded' | Irish Examiner
 
This is an interesting read, but I have trouble with the idea that one has to be aware and critical of all global human rights abuses in order justifiably to criticize Israel.

Also the idea/implication that the history of the region needs to be front and center to current perspectives is not something I can support. The USA's many entanglements with the creation of Israel is no reason for unequivocal support in the present day.

I agree, and think this article is an apt comment on how the context of other conflicts and human rights abuses should be taken into account when criticising Israel's conflict with Gaza: Massacre in Yarmouk | Jonathan Messing
Every person has to ask themselves why their outrage is so great when it comes to Israel, yet the CAR conflict, South Sudan, IS in both Syria and Iraq or Syria as a whole have kinda faded or never been so prominent.
Is it that when the Jews do it it is so much worse? Then it is anti-semitism.
Maybe it is because people see Israel as much closer to Western values, a modern democracy that claims to be guided by morals. But that would end up in cultural relativism.

I don't think, though, that Schwartz meant to give any justification to why some Americans are so unconditional in their support for Israel. It was an explanation why things are that way, but he did not say that it was right to be this way. I feel he much more identified with what he said was the younger generation of Americans, who have a more balanced view.
 
I agree, and think this article is an apt comment on how the context of other conflicts and human rights abuses should be taken into account when criticising Israel's conflict with Gaza: Massacre in Yarmouk | Jonathan Messing
Every person has to ask themselves why their outrage is so great when it comes to Israel, yet the CAR conflict, South Sudan, IS in both Syria and Iraq or Syria as a whole have kinda faded or never been so prominent.
Is it that when the Jews do it it is so much worse? Then it is anti-semitism.
Maybe it is because people see Israel as much closer to Western values, a modern democracy that claims to be guided by morals. But that would end up in cultural relativism.

I don't think, though, that Schwartz meant to give any justification to why some Americans are so unconditional in their support for Israel. It was an explanation why things are that way, but he did not say that it was right to be this way. I feel he much more identified with what he said was the younger generation of Americans, who have a more balanced view.

I think Israel gets more attention than other human rights abusers because of the scale and duration of their behaviour. Also, the profile of the nation (in Canada at least) is much higher than pretty much every other country aside from the USA and England...which is interesting, because it's completely insignificant internationally aside from their occupation of the Palestinian territories, the siege of Gaza, and their "mowing the lawn" every couple of years. So the profile gets them attention, and it's not like they're getting attention for abandoning fossil fuels or anything.

I think that the main reason, though, is that people just don't like seeing a wealthy nation with an advanced military occupying and slaughtering civilians. The outrage against Israel is much lower that what the USA faced regarding Iraq, but it's for the same reason: people don't have a stomach for illegal wars and colonial actions any more. But really, Israel is getting off pretty light in the court of public opinion. Compare the treatment they receive to what Russia gets because people think they might do what Israel is currently doing: Sanctions, belligerent threats from world leaders, comparisons to the Nazis, and so on. Israel is being supported by the same governments who criticize Russia for occupying a piece of land (albeit through an election no less fraudulent that what we seen in America every four years) and killing civilians (290 according to McLean's Magazine, 15% of the civilians Israel has killed over the last three weeks or so). So really, talking about Israel eating shit for what they're doing is a bit odd since they're not. They still receive money and munitions from the West, and the media portrays them as a victim.
 
Reading Eno's new letter and I was struck by the following:

If you criticize Israel without criticizing all other atrocities you're an anti-Semite. It is the only conflict that requires you to condemn all others before you get to it. It's fucked.
 
If you criticize Israel without criticizing all other atrocities you're an anti-Semite. It is the only conflict that requires you to condemn all others before you get to it. It's fucked.


really? i find it the opposite -- does Brian Eno write letters about Putin and Chechnya?
 
...and the media portrays them as a victim.

I've been watching BBC News quite a bit lately; they have been taking what seems to be a pro-Palestinian stance on the whole thing (not overtly, but rather with a lot of attention to the toll the raids have taken on Gaza's population), which stands in stark contrast to US coverage.
 
This is an interesting read, but I have trouble with the idea that one has to be aware and critical of all global human rights abuses in order justifiably to criticize Israel.

Yep, and I had a serious problem with the parts of Schwartz's letter that implied as much (though most of the rest of the exchange between him and Eno was a good read). I think this article - written over two years ago - captures my perspective nicely: Impossible vanity of caring for everything at once
 
really? i find it the opposite -- does Brian Eno write letters about Putin and Chechnya?

Well it's an interesting point isn't it. Haven't seen Roger Waters do any stage shows criticising the above, or ISIS, either.

To me, the obsessive interest from some Europeans in any conflict involving Israel, and almost always taking a fervently anti-Israeli position, is not explainable rationally. Psycho-analytically, maybe.

Reportedly 1,000 killed in Iraq today by ISIS, I go on internet forums to comment on Israel-Gaza threads (I don't mean this forum) to point this out (& I was against Iraq war from day 1, for the record) and I'm accused of being in the payroll of Mossad by the pro-Hamas, sorry I mean, pro-Gaza chorus. Fucking hell.
 
I do think there's an intellectual fascination with this crisis -- it is so complex, and has been a dominant ongoing storyline for most of my life (in mid-30s). That may be part of the attention.


Sent from
 
I do think there's an intellectual fascination with this crisis -- it is so complex, and has been a dominant ongoing storyline for most of my life (in mid-30s). That may be part of the attention.


Sent from

Is part of it that Israel is viewed as part of the "Western world" (they're in the Eurovision song contest, somewhat implausibly) and "expected" to uphold higher standards than Islamic world? This is a country that has imprisoned a former president on sex abuse charges - there are not too many countries where such a high level figure can be brought to account for such offences, whatever other criticisms can be made about Israel. Christ, in the UK they only now getting around to (maybe) charging politicians with abuse crimes from decades ago.
 
Well it's an interesting point isn't it. Haven't seen Roger Waters do any stage shows criticising the above, or ISIS, either.

To me, the obsessive interest from some Europeans in any conflict involving Israel, and almost always taking a fervently anti-Israeli position, is not explainable rationally. Psycho-analytically, maybe.

Reportedly 1,000 killed in Iraq today by ISIS, I go on internet forums to comment on Israel-Gaza threads (I don't mean this forum) to point this out (& I was against Iraq war from day 1, for the record) and I'm accused of being in the payroll of Mossad by the pro-Hamas, sorry I mean, pro-Gaza chorus. Fucking hell.


Concerning Roger Waters and those who support the boycott
of performing in Israel.


I'm glad that some like Gene Simmons have spoken out against it and
the artists who continue to perform there.



from:  Advertisement

"Kiss' Israeli-born lead singer Gene Simmons shouted out on Tuesday at the string of musicians who have refused to perform in Israel, saying they were fools.

The legendary bassist spoke to The Associated Press in Jerusalem on Tuesday, after he arrived in Israel for what he described as an emotional homecoming.

"I'm Israeli. I'm a stranger in America. I'm an outsider," he said, speaking in a hotel lobby across a valley from the walls of Jerusalem's historic Old City. "I was born here and I'm proud of it."

He said artists who avoid Israel - such as Elvis Costello, the Pixies and Roger Waters, who joined the movement after appearing in Israel in 2006 - would be better served directing their anger at Arab dictators."
 
Other than the cultural superiority of Israel, what other thoughts do you have on this particular topic?


Sent from
 
Ok. And?


Sent from

Do you have any view on the point made by Gene Simmons when he said that "artists who avoid Israel - such as Elvis Costello, the Pixies and Roger Waters, who joined the movement after appearing in Israel in 2006 - would be better served directing their anger at Arab dictators."
 
Back
Top Bottom