Why Israel?

[Mike B.]

First of all, let me apologize for another Israel thread, I mean there hasn't been one for, I don't know...15 minutes.

But that is the point of this thread.

There are a large number of places in the world where all kind of brutality and human rights violations are going on. In terms of body counts there are number of brutal conflicts in Africa (including one in which the apporved method is cutting off limbs) which surpass Israel/Palistine by a thousand-fold. (And that is not an exageration.)

As far as occupation, what about the 1,000,000 people or so that have died since China occupied Tibet?

As far as killing Muslims, I bet Saddam killed more Muslims by invading Iran in 1979 than Zionists will ever do.

My point is why the almost monomanical attention to Israel?

Note: I am not saying that there is no suffering in Israel/Palestine. I would like to see the road map work. Nor am I accusing anyone of anti-semitism.

However, it seems odd that the fence being built in Israel gets more outrage than the genocide of 2,000,000 animists in southern Sudan. (Again I am not saying that people are not suffering in Israel/Palistine.)

I know AUP has ustified his attention on Israel because he believes that what goes on there affects the whole world. I don't know if that explains the sole focus on it. It also begs the question of why or should what happens in Israel cause people to kill each other in other parts of the world.

[Malachi151]

Because of the politics involved.

The issue has implications outside of the direct human toll that is involved.

Just to name one thing, the PLO have committed dozens of terrorist acts over the past 40 years involving a wide range of countries.

[Dancing David]

Good question, om, maybe because certain countries with a lot of power prop up Isreal and then tout it as a democracy.

I find that Chile is the most disturbing of the fallouts of the Monroe doctrine.

Why the obsession with the cold war?

[Gem]

Politics as always.

Are reports in Tibets? Is Tibet our ally?

Do Americans even know what the Iran/Iraq war was (and what led to it? And who's side we were on?)

And Africa is utterly off the chart of American Policy, except the standard "We will fight aids blah blah etc."

There is so much attention on Isreal/Palestine that every single event is reported, some of them front page. Isreal is the democratic ally of the US in a dictatorship/fundemantalist area. If the American people wanted it, they could demand from their president to pressure Isreal to do certain things. (It also pressured Arafat to pick a Prime Minister)

Ergo, those who just want to complain will complain about this, because it's the most known crisis.

Like you said, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the violence elsewhere, but people have a short attention span.

Gem

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Good question, om, maybe because certain countries with a lot of power prop up Isreal and then tout it as a democracy.

I find that Chile is the most disturbing of the fallouts of the Monroe doctrine.

Why the obsession with the cold war?

Yet the Unites States has propped up other countries and they don't get the same attention.

[plindboe]

The Israel conflict really is the mother of conflicts. That is the reason why we see every American president become personally involved, as soon as they have realized this fact. It creates hate across the entire Middle East not only towards Israel but equally towards the US, as Israel's closest ally, and because of it's immense funding for the Israeli military. Without this conflict, the world would be a great deal more peaceful today, and terrorism wouldn't be the major concern it is.

Though personally I would like to see more attention given to other conflicts around the world, especially the Russian war in Chechnya, which in itself is more oppressive and gruesome than the Israely occupation is.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Gem
Politics as always.

Are reports in Tibets? Is Tibet our ally?

Do Americans even know what the Iran/Iraq war was (and what led to it? And who's side we were on?)

And Africa is utterly off the chart of American Policy, except the standard "We will fight aids blah blah etc."

There is so much attention on Isreal/Palestine that every single event is reported, some of them front page. Isreal is the democratic ally of the US in a dictatorship/fundemantalist area. If the American people wanted it, they could demand from their president to pressure Isreal to do certain things. (It also pressured Arafat to pick a Prime Minister)

Ergo, those who just want to complain will complain about this, because it's the most known crisis.

Like you said, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the violence elsewhere, but people have a short attention span.

Gem

I don't mean just America; I mean the world.

As Peter has mentioned what about the conflict in Chechnya?

There was a massive carpet bombing of cities by the Russians that killed thousands of civilians, yet this barely got a "ho hum" out of the world. Where was the UN with countless resolutions about this matter?

Where was the international press coverage?

Yes I know it was there, but it was very much smaller than the oceans of ink spilled on Israel.

Are we left with an Orwellian, "All victims are equal, except some are more equal than others."

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I don't mean just America; I mean the world.

As Peter has mentioned what about the conflict in Chechnya?

There was a massive carpet bombing of cities by the Russians that killed thousands of civilians, yet this barely got a "ho hum" out of the world. Where was the UN with countless resolutions about this matter?

Where was the international press coverage?

Yes I know it was there, but it was very much smaller than the oceans of ink spilled on Israel.

Are we left with an Orwellian, "All victims are equal, except some are more equal than others."

There are news outlets that do cover these things, NPR and the BBC for two, but I agree we should ask why Israel , and then also ask why not Israel.

I have the belief that the american news organizations don't cover the war ic Chechnya becasue the president doesn't want then to, same for Tibet.

Then we have whackos like Pat Roberts....

[Mr Manifesto]

I think the problem is that there are polarised views on the Israel/Palestine conflict.

There are those who, for simplicity's sake, we will call 'pro-Israel' (though it's more complex than this, these people, mostly, do not have a one-eyed view of Israel and uncriticisingly support all of her policies), and there are those who, for simplicities sake, we will call 'pro-Palestine' (see above, subsititute 'Palestine' for 'Israel').

This leads to arguments which neither side will give in on with their points of view. Witness this forum if you want evidence.

No-one really argues that China invading Tibet is a bad thing, or that what is happening in the Congo is a bad thing. I could start a thread right now saying "CHINA- GET OUT OF TIBET!" Most people on this forum will say "Yeah!" I can't imagine anyone saying they deserve to be there. Oh, except Sinister W, but the Secret Clique seem to have finally gotten him blackballed, as he predicited.

No arguments=issue falls off the social radar.

As to Mycroft's comments about the US supporting other countries and nothing has been said about it, err, you must only read the Israel threads. Or have you missed what Malachi says about the US all the time? Or my comments about the US interfering in elections, etc, etc, etc, etc. In fact there are quite a few books at the moment critical of the US's policies with other countries, such as "Why Do People Hate America", "Weapons of Mass Deception", "Rogue State", oh, and let's have some comic relief "Stupid White Men".

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I think the problem is that there are polarised views on the Israel/Palestine conflict.

There are those who, for simplicity's sake, we will call 'pro-Israel' (though it's more complex than this, these people, mostly, do not have a one-eyed view of Israel and uncriticisingly support all of her policies), and there are those who, for simplicities sake, we will call 'pro-Palestine' (see above, subsititute 'Palestine' for 'Israel').

This leads to arguments which neither side will give in on with their points of view. Witness this forum if you want evidence.

No-one really argues that China invading Tibet is a bad thing, or that what is happening in the Congo is a bad thing. I could start a thread right now saying "CHINA- GET OUT OF TIBET!" Most people on this forum will say "Yeah!" I can't imagine anyone saying they deserve to be there. Oh, except Sinister W, but the Secret Clique seem to have finally gotten him blackballed, as he predicited.

No arguments=issue falls off the social radar.

As to Mycroft's comments about the US supporting other countries and nothing has been said about it, err, you must only read the Israel threads. Or have you missed what Malachi says about the US all the time? Or my comments about the US interfering in elections, etc, etc, etc, etc. In fact there are quite a few books at the moment critical of the US's policies with other countries, such as "Why Do People Hate America", "Weapons of Mass Deception", "Rogue State", oh, and let's have some comic relief "Stupid White Men".

All of these are good points.

However, what about beyond this board?

The UN?

etc.

[svero]

This is like asking why an important person, say Bill Gates doing something, makes the news and an unimportant person does not. The middle east is considered an area of great strategic importance in the world due to the energy reserves found there. Israel is right smack in the middle of it and is supported strongly by the world's main military super-power. Eyes are focused in that general direction, and while there may be similar things happening elsewhere they simply don't have the same attention because what goes on in those other places has little value to those who aren't living there. It's probably also a factor that Israel is unique in many respects historically, but I think it always comes back to location. If Israel had been located in Iceland and had similar problems I doubt we'd hear much about it at all.

This is not a perfect analogy, I admit, but just imagine two towns that are at odds in various ways, but where all the people in each town had to eat the food coming from a single farm because nothing would grow anywhere else. People quickly learn that control of the food in that farm is a lever of power. This is true even if one of the towns doesnt need the food anymore since they can still use the farm production to influence the other town. So the Mayor from town A has sway over the farmer and his wife he might ask them to raise the food prices for the the rival town so he can bargain better export duty rates for his town's chair production and so on... The rival town forms a union for the farm workers and tries to control food production that way. They're constantly vying for better control of the food any way they can. In a scenario like this what goes on in the farm gets a lot of attention from everyone even if it's not related directly to the food production.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Mike B.
My point is why the almost monomanical attention to Israel?

Lazy press. You've got nice hotels, good restuarants, modern
communications, a religious angle that hooks people in, and a
conflict that's very low level, you take a few photos write up a
report and that's it.

Other major world conflicts are hot - meaning your likely to get
killed even if you play it safe. (Heck. In my area it's three murders
a night on the tele for an area of half a million. Scale up to the pop
for Isreal and you've got a death rate ten times greater than all
the suicide bombers put together.) Plus the other conflicts don't
have the nice hotels and the other effects of modern civilization.

P.S. HeHeHe... Dance! Dance! Dance!

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/avatar.php?userid=4106&dateline=1063062098

Last Daze Synthony (http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Last_Daze_Synthony/) - One, Two, Three.mp3 (http://www.iuma.com/site-bin/mp3gen/18499/IUMA/Bands/Last_Daze_Synthony/audio/Last_Daze_Synthony_-_One,_Two,_Three.mp3)

[Iamme]

MikeB---I think the Bible is what did it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Gem
Politics as always.

Are reports in Tibets? Is Tibet our ally?



That is another reason for the concentration on Israel, than, say, Tibet. I think just about everyone* here would agree that China should get their hands off Tibet. Doesn't make for much of a debate.

* Except perhaps Huzington, but even he may not like China now that it has turned into a kind of bigger version of Singapore.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mike B.


All of these are good points.

However, what about beyond this board?

The UN?

etc.

Well, to take Tibet again as an example, without a lot of public pressure, who's going to put their hand up to take on China? The US seems to be the only country that likes going after countries without popular support, and she seems to prefer her enemys weak and disorganised.

[a_unique_person]

In fact, when Dubya was elected, China was pretty high up on the list of countries to treat agressively. Since the Iraq adventure, they are back to being pals again. Tibet would never figure very high in the stakes these guys are playing with.

[Chaos]

Wasn´t there this spy-plane incident in early 2001?

Of course, GWB was not yet in crusading mood back then, so nothing serious developed from it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Chaos
Wasn´t there this spy-plane incident in early 2001?

Of course, GWB was not yet in crusading mood back then, so nothing serious developed from it.

If it had been Saddam who brought down the spy-plane, the invasion would have started the next day.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If it had been Saddam who brought down the spy-plane, the invasion would have started the next day.

I don't understand; are both of you advocating that Bush should have went to war with China?

One size does not fit all when it comes to foreign policy.

[a_unique_person]

Not at all, I was just recalling how in the early days of the Bush regime, he held a very antagonistic attitude to China. Now that the US has it's hands full elsewhere, it is very friendly with China, despite Tibet and the spy plane being downed.

But the whole point about "why Israel" is that I don't think anyone here would argue that Tibet should not be occupied by China.

[demon]

Why Israel?

So many battles have been lost, so many quislings have corrupted and defeated the brave...

Palestine goes beyond 'muslim' or 'arab' considerations.
It is the last remaining manifestation of the struggle between white supremacy, with it's institutionalised hypocracy, and the innate rights of the bulk of humanity to be free from interference and oppression.

The nature and objective of zionism may be different from the rest of Western civilisation, but their method of tapping into the West, of hitting upon the right prejudices is evidence enough of the true commonalities that exist.

Israel does represent Western 'values' and 'civilisation', that is it's symbolic power.








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

[Supercharts]

Why Israel?
'Cause they are Jews.
Jews.
Got it?
Very simple.

There is no commentary I've read in this forum condemning Israel other than the fact that they are Jews.

Tough being a Jew. [Actually it's a source of pride. That's odd for a group of people who were rounded up, put into prison and systematically gassed, shot and/or starved to death]

But lets not forget the 'others'. Let's all stand back and intellectualize about it. Put enough space between the obvious and historical facts and weep for those who have lost some land while others have lost 5M lives. Gotta be fair.

It's all a 'Jew' thing. We all want to be martyrs. Gandhi must feel proud wherever he is. Noble sacrifice...
But I could be wrong.
:mad:

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by demon
Why Israel?

Israel does represent Western 'values' and 'civilisation', that is it's symbolic power.

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

Could you explain what this means more fully?

Thanks.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Supercharts

There is no commentary I've read in this forum condemning Israel other than the fact that they are Jews.


But you can't read, so that isn't saying much.