babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Israeli Academics Get Right To The Point

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Israeli Academics Get Right To The Point
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 September 2002 08:59 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Israeli profs warn of risk of ethnic cleansing

quote:
In a letter to the Guardian newspaper on Saturday, they wrote: "We, members of Israeli academe, are horrified by the U.S. buildup of aggression toward Iraq and by the Israeli political leadership's enthusiastic support of it. We are deeply worried by indications that the `fog of war' could be exploited by the Israeli government to take further action against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing... "

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 29 September 2002 09:19 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm glad they used the phrase "full-fledged ethnic cleansing" so as not to leave the impression that there has been no ethnic cleansing up to now.

Unfortunately, the U.S. show 60 Minutes just had what I can only describe as Likud love letter regarding Iraq and Iran's funding and financial dealins with the PLO, Hezbollah, etc. They only interviewed Israeli officials, one of whom had a Netanyahu-like smirk on his face. (What's with these right-wing smirk artists anyway)? No mention is made of the U.S. supplying Israel with weapons such as the attack helicopter which was used in the apartment building bombing several months ago. An arguable violation of the terms of the sale under U.S. law I might add.

To be fair, 60 Minutes has done pieces sympathetic to the Palestinian viewpoint. But this one was too much.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 29 September 2002 09:29 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
To be fair, 60 Minutes has done pieces sympathetic to the Palestinian viewpoint. But this one was too much.


Why was it "too much"? Because it demonstrated the peril of Iraq and Iran funded terrorism. Albeit somewhat flawed I agree, YOU SIMPLY CANNOT DISMISS OUT OF HAND THE EVIDENCE IT PRESENTED. iF EVEN HALF OF IT IS ACCURATE (FOR ARGUMENT SAKE) IT FULLY JUSTIFYS CONCERNS BEING EXPRESSED BY BOTH THE USA AND ISRAEL. HE WHO GOES ABOUT LIFE WITH BLINDERS WILL NOT SEE.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 29 September 2002 09:30 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ethnic-cleansing. The new buzzword.

Do you have proof that Israel has engaged in ethnic-cleansing?


From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 29 September 2002 09:39 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ethnic-cleansing. The new buzzword.
Do you have proof that Israel has engaged in ethnic-cleansing?


Cyber you will find that when it comes to Israel these terms get bandied about quite liberally. Rarely is any REAL proof brought forward. Usually we see hysterical commentary and occassionaly they will pullout the odd Israeli or ultra-left Jewish activist to try and bolster their position.

And BTW, despite allegations that even these 100 professors have suggested that Israel is already practicing "ethnic cleansing" a truthful read of the story does not say that at all.

Again typical of what we see here.

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 29 September 2002 11:29 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Usually we see hysterical commentary

This from the poster responsible for the largest part of it.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 September 2002 12:19 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This from the poster responsible for the largest part of it.
Each to their own opinion

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 September 2002 07:47 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mishei, other than suicide bombers, what you call terrorism, the other side would call justifiable resistance. Why should only one side in the conflict have arms? Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason they supply these weapons and funding is that they are legitimately sympathetic to the Palestinian cause?

C.N. I have posted time and again about the ethnic cleansing Israel has undertaken from 1948 until today. If you don't want to consider those facts, that's your problem. Ethnic cleansing is driving another ethnic group, race or religion off their land so that another ethnic group, race or religion can take it. Many of the actions taken by Israel since 1948 fit that definition.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 September 2002 08:56 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mishei, other than suicide bombers, what you call terrorism, the other side would call justifiable resistance.
I know that some call it that but those who do are only justifying mass murder. There are few military targets in the eyes of Hamas et al. The sites chosen target families and the young; pizza parlours, resteraunts, market places, amusement halls...so Josh do not fall into the trap of "justifying by proxy" the callous murder of innocence.

I reiterate, the PA had an opportunity to create their own state. Clear thinking leaders amongst the Palestinians were ready to accept Camp David because they knew that even with all of it's flaws it offered the opportunity for statehood and from there Palestinians could further negotiate, if need be, as a free and independent state.

What is clear for anyone to see is that the so-called leadership (Arafat et al) manipulated and then supported the extremist element within the PA to target, attack and murder Israelis with the hope that these tactics would terrify the Israelis into further concessions including the so-called "right of return" to Israel for all Palestinians. Instead it only created a steely resolve and a desperation amongst Israelis not to give in to terror which of course led to a more right wing government which ironically has little interest in moving negotiations forward at this time.

Palestinians must understand that there are elements within Israel that still desire peace. However they will not be part of the mainstream until the violence ends and they can once again re-establish. As long as the violence continues Sharon or even Netanyahu will be the favored sons (like it or not)...terror will lead to retalliation...that has been the key theme here and the only way to break it is for enlightened leadership both within the PA and Israel, to agressively seek it in a non-violent way.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 September 2002 10:14 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Cyber you will find that when it comes to Israel these terms get bandied about quite liberally. Rarely is any REAL proof brought forward. Usually we see hysterical commentary and occassionaly they will pullout the odd Israeli or ultra-left Jewish activist to try and bolster their position.

Mishei, to whom does this paragraph refer? Who is doing the "bandying," and who are "they" in this paragraph? Given the two passive verbs and the pronouns without antecedents, it is difficult to interpret most of that post.

This concluding line, though --

quote:
Again typical of what we see here.

-- suggests that the whole post is a broadside attack on babble. Am I correct in that reading?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 September 2002 11:49 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mishei, I didn't word it clearly enough. What I meant is that other than suicide bombers against civilian targets, which I also consider terrorism, violence committed by Palestinians, which others may or may not consider terrorism, is considered by many to be a legitimate response to occupation and settlement. Therefore, I do not believe it is "terrorist" for the Palestinians to try to acquire weapons to fight the military occupation and the settlements.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 September 2002 12:12 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This concluding line, though --


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again typical of what we see here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- suggests that the whole post is a broadside attack on babble. Am I correct in that reading?


No you are not correct. It is a critism a strongly held view that many of the posts here tend to be pro-Palestinian with little effort to ever see or understand the Israeli POV. Is that OK? Am I permitted to offer such an opinion?

Josh, thanks for your clarification.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 September 2002 12:48 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We've had it up to here *points at ceiling* with the Israeli POV. If I want it I just have to think back over the last 15 years I've been reading the goddamn newspapers, watching the TV, and reading books and Op-Ed pieces about it.

I can get the Israeli POV any time I want, buddy.

YOU have no fears on that score. The Israeli POV is not about to dry up and blow away, I assure you.

However, anybody with a brain can also see that a good deal of common sense, even reading the heavily pro-Israeli press of the late 1980s/early 1990s (as I did when I was growing up) would make them stop and ask themselves why in tarnation a bunch of kids with rocks deserve chaingun fire by return trip instead of a few months in the lockup.

Or, for that matter, if they got chucked in the lockup, and got let out, why would they keep doing it? Hmm. Something ain't quite ringing true here, fellas.

So I asked myself why a government like Israel's would be so eager to make use of ham-fisted tactics (this was back when Shamir was PM, you understand. I never liked him anyway. He looked like an old constipated bitter asshole.) in order to deal with the problem, and I concluded I couldn't justify the excessive use of force.

So the question must be asked whether or not Israel's own actions as reported uncritically in a relatively pro-Israeli media generally are not sowing the seeds of peoples' doubts about the legitimacy of such actions.

Food for thought, boys and girls.

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 30 September 2002 01:24 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We were discussing this one day in my 8th grade history class in NJ, and one of my classmates asked "Who would throw stones against people armed with tanks and rifles?".

My response, which still pleases me greatly because of the way I managed to word it around the objections of the several Zionists in my class: "You shouldn't word it like that. That makes it sound like the Palestinians started this mini-episode first. The question should be: Who uses tanks and rocket launchers against a few little kids throwing pebbles?"

Dessert.


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 September 2002 01:34 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[QUOTE] ]We've had it up to here [/QUOTE
Are you now speaking on behalf of Babble? Who is this royal "we"?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 September 2002 06:39 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sure YOU haven't had it up to here *points at ceiling* yet, but I'm sure that if I polled a bunch of people they would all agree that coverage of Israel has been extensive over the last 20 years.

So it's fair to say "we".


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Art J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2259

posted 30 September 2002 07:07 PM      Profile for Art J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Who is this royal "we"?

Everyone but you, by the looks of it.

Rabble is such an antidote to the 'real world' where we don't have to know what we think; we're told what we think.. repeatedly: Israelis good, Palestinians bad, and anti-Israel is anti-semitic.

And, hey, how about that hockey game last night? Wasn't that something?

Pffssst


From: British Columbia Inc. - Let us Prey | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 30 September 2002 11:06 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm sure YOU haven't had it up to here *points at ceiling* yet, but I'm sure that if I polled a bunch of people they would all agree that coverage of Israel has been extensive over the last 20 years.
So it's fair to say "we".


"a bunch of people"?? Now that;'s real scientific. Oh yes Im sure your "bunch of people" would have had it up to here *points to ceiling*.

Now with your scientific logic I too will poll a "bunch of people". And guess what my "bunch of people" will not have had it up to here *points at ceiling*.

Real scientific type polling huh?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 30 September 2002 11:15 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So if you don't want to address the point, either by acknowledging (nothing wrong with that) or refuting (nothing wrong with doing that politely either) you choose to nit-pick on DrC's use of collaquialisms. I would wager that you know perfectly well what he meant, Mishei.
From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 30 September 2002 11:22 PM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
About as scientific, Mishei, as your earlier assertion (in another thread) that Arafat's words are entirely lies?
From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 September 2002 11:35 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mishei: So are you denying that there has been extensive coverage of Israel over the last 20 years in the North American media?
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 October 2002 08:37 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mishei: So are you denying that there has been extensive coverage of Israel over the last 20 years in the North American media?
Of course not. What I am denying is that the coverage was necessarily pro-Israel. For years the Star and the Globe had a pro-Palestinian editorial policy which, I believe, continues to this day.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 01 October 2002 09:25 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow Mishei, two papers. what an example considering the Doc said 'North American media'
Here are but a few examples the DrC was referring to:

quote:
The devastating human toll of such "retaliations" makes these imbalances all the more striking. According to the latest estimates from the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, 897 of the Palestinians killed from September 29, 2000 though March 30, 2002 have been civilians. Israeli security forces killed 823 of those 897 people, including 192 children. B'Tselem records that 253 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians in the same period, including 48 children. At least 16 of those 253 people were killed by Palestinian National Authority security forces or persons reportedly linked to them. B'Tselem notes that these figures include neither suicide bombers nor Palestinians who "died after medical treatment was delayed" by Israeli forces. (See .)

Figures like these, highlighting the targeting of non-combatants and even children, make clear that it is simply inaccurate to cast either side as acting purely defensively.

The language of retaliation is only one factor in reporting, of course, but FAIR's findings-- 79 percent to 9 percent-- are striking and indicate a tendency to define Israel's role as defensive, and the Palestinian role as aggressive. By doing so, ABC, CBS and NBC have oversimplified this complicated conflict and done a disservice to viewers.



FAIR

quote:
Before the January 9 gun battle on the Gaza Strip, National Public Radio (NPR) had for weeks been telling its listeners that Israel/Palestine was in a period of “relative quiet.”

“Morning Edition” anchor Bob Edwards on January 3 stated that U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni was coming to the region during “a time of comparative quiet.” In another report the same day, correspondent Linda Gradstein referred to “the relative calm of the past few weeks.” Other NPR reports have mentioned the “recent calm” (1/5/02) or the “fragile period of quiet” (1/7/02).

What NPR means by this was spelled out most explicitly by Linda Gradstein in a January 4 report on the envoy’s mission. "You know, there's been actually three weeks of relative quiet,” she said. “Only one Israeli has been killed in those three weeks, as opposed to 44 Israelis who were killed when Zinni was here last time in November and early December."

What Gradstein didn’t mention-- and what someone who relied on NPR for their Middle Eastern news would have little idea of -- was that this has been in no way a period of calm for Palestinians. In fact, in the three-week period that Gradstein referred to, at least 26 Palestinians were killed by occupation forces-- more than one a day



For NPR, Violence Is Calm if It’s Violence Against Palestinians

quote:
Thus, incredibly, more than 90 percent of network TV reporting on the occupied territories fails to report that the territories are occupied. (On CNN, the number is closer to 80 percent, perhaps reflecting the network's awareness of its international audience.) This appears to mark an actual deterioration in the quality of reporting from the Middle East. During the Intifada years (1990=92), 156 of the 199 stories mentioning the West Bank or Gaza on ABC and CBS--more than three quarters--used words like "occupied"--usually as part of the now-vanished phrase "occupied territories" but often, more daringly, to explain that Palestinians were "living under Israeli occupation." Tellingly, while Israel's occupation has been mentioned in almost two-thirds of the news stories in the London Independent this year, it has been omitted from more than two-thirds of stories in the New York Times.

"Occupation" a taboo word in intifada coverage

From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 October 2002 10:23 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wow Mishei, two papers. what an example considering the Doc said 'North American media'

Yes Irene the two largest newspapers in the country. The two newspapers in which the majority of Canadians get their news from. The two newspapers which are the leading editorialists in the country. No Irene, we don't have to be led by the American media when most Canadians get their news from either the CBC (decidedly pro-Palestinina) or newspapers such as the Globe and the Star

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 01 October 2002 10:45 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why are you changing the argument? You respond to a comment about North American media (as a whole) with a couple of examples of one side of Canadian media.

Are you asserting that the Globe, the Star, and CBC are representative of the general editorial policies of the whole of North American media?

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Flowers By Irene ]


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 October 2002 11:03 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you asserting that the Globe, the Star, and CBC are representative of the general editorial policies of the whole of North American media?


No, all Im saying is that as a proud Canadian and looking at the issue from a decidedly Canadian discussiion board we still (Canada) make up half of North America. That said, even within American media, I think it is fair to say that the coverage has been 50/50 at best.

I know of no way to assess this objectively given the huge media concetration in the United States. Anecdotal feelings is no objective test of how and what the media actually cover.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 01 October 2002 02:27 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
West Bank ethnic cleansing update: less settlers, more land.


http://makeashorterlink.com/?O213158F1


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 October 2002 02:49 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Most of the outposts and other construction was coordinated with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and top officers in the IDF.


Sure, they want peace.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2002 02:58 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And Sharon is only "retaliating." Sharon only reacts. He is not an agent of anything; he has no plans or projects.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 02 October 2002 03:24 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow Mishei,

Flower by Irene produces a 2 1/2-screen post, with three pertinent linked articles providing exactly the kind of statistics on reporting of the Israel/Palestine situation that you're making expansive counterclaims about, and you only take up her opening sentence, ignoring the meat. I guess you couldn't argue against the facts.

Remind me again why I should listen to anything you say, when you can't even be bothered to debate a point?


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 02 October 2002 04:53 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Remind me again why I should listen to anything you say, when you can't even be bothered to debate a point?


Now you dissect my posts and demand I respond in a particular way. Love it!!

aRoused feel free not to listen to anything I say.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 October 2002 11:51 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Life in Nablus:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/international/middleeast/03MIDE.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca