Israel's Reality

That would be news to all the people who were sold into the Islamic slave trade.

The European slave trade was run by Europeans. By butflake's logic, Christianity and Judaism are responsible for the millions killed in that trade.

Characterizing my comments in this thread (or in the one entitled "Israel's Shame") as apoplectic is not quite has hyperbolic as characterizing the Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians as genocide, but it's part of a pattern. Like questioning my humanity.

As for knee-jerk reaction it seems that you've joined those who reflexively resort to name-calling (even if a cute euphemism is employed) so you probably should be a bit more circumspect in terms of what you claim about others. If I had to choose, though, between which of the two habits I would prefer to see you break, it would be the hyperbole. Or at least that there be an equitable application. If the Israelis are pursuing a strategy of genocide to deal with the Palestinians, what would you call the Palestinian's approach? If you can only come up with something like "throwing off the yoke of their genocidal oppressors," I withdraw my question. One thing the Israelis are, generally, not accused of is incompetence, but if killing 750 Palestinians is part of their genocidal efforts, perhaps they are not quite as efficiently effective as they have been credited.

I didn't know who Dean Obeidallah (the author of the article you linked) was so I looked him up. Turns out he is a 44 year old Arab-American comedian whose shtick is fairly predictable Arab related humor. A sort of Arab Yakov Smirnoff without the phony accent. I watched a few of his video clips that were on his website (so you have to figure he thinks they're among his best) and he seems a likeable guy with a quick wit, who is trying to cash in on his unique (for the US) heritage in a very competitive field.

His article in the Daily Beast while containing buried within it a fairly valid point, is interesting for other points which you may or may not have noticed. First of all, it’s pretty obvious that Obeidallah is trying kiss up to Stewart and assure return visits to The Daily Show, but Hollywood stars were supporting Palestine long before Jon Stewart came on the scene. While Stewart does have some influence on popular culture, where is the evidence that the comments by Cusack, Stoudemire, Howard, Gomez and Rihanna were inspired by anything Stewart has said? Sadly, I don’t doubt that American youth, including college students are informed about political issues by The Daily Show, it has shown up in polls as the primary source of news for a lot of them. It’s a good show and Stewart can be funny, but it shouldn’t be anyone’s primary (read “sole”) source for news.

Obeidallah saves his fairly valid point for the end of his article:



Unfortunately, as he reveals along the way to this point, what he really means, despite the care taken to appear fair-minded, is:



In the entire article there is not one reference to anyone speaking out about Palestinian acts. And aside from the obligatory throw-away line ('Stewart, of course, did express sympathy for the people of Israel suffering from Hamas missiles'.) all of the empathy he calls for is related to the Palestinians. In fact he immediately followed his classic lead up to a “But” with "But clearly he was moved by the massive Palestinian civilian casualties, calling it a “civilian carnage Toyotathon.” So with one comment he allows that Stewart is sympathetic for the pinpricks the Israelis are suffering BUT with the other, he returns his focus to how horrible the Palestinians are faring. I’ve made this point before in this thread: While I do not mean to dismiss out of hand any of civilian deaths, and agree with anyone and everyone that they are tragic, it is difficult to accept 750 deaths as massive carnage when viewed in comparison with what is happening in Syria (100,000 civilian casualties in 3 years) and Iraq (6,000 civilian casualties in 3 months)

Putting aside his Jonny Come Lately status, a better way to describe the influence Jon Stewart has had on his audience is making it cool to care about Palestinian suffering. Cusack, Stoudemire, Howard, Gomez and Rihanna are hardly intellectual heavyweights or, with the exception of Howard, known for their good works. I don’t doubt that that they are sincere in their care for Palestinians suffering, but how committed can the three of them who deleted their tweets be? The worlds of Film, Music, and Sports are filled with people who know very little about the topics they weigh in on other than which position is deemed to be cool.
It’s pretty clear from this article and one or two of his comedy clips that Obeidallah is of the mindset shared by many of Stewart’s fans that liberal is cool and conservative is not, and while he actually has some historical skin in the game he still advances the extension of the previously referred to mindset or Palestinians cool, Israelis not.

He writes the following about John Cusack:



Somehow simply by having been to Israel and Palestine, Cusack is in the position to know that the Israelis are deliberately targeting civilians, and that the bombs that kill Palestinian civilians are not intended to destroy stored rockets or launching sites. Cusack sure is an insightful traveler, does he write travel books?

It’s pretty clear that the self-proclaimed Israeli supporter, Dave Presser, is indeed just that, based not only on his comments but by the Israeli flag he uses as his icon, but how did Obeidallah come to the conclusion that Presser is a conservative? The guy’s from Melbourne Australia, so if he’s a famous conservative there, maybe you’re familiar with him hinge, but from what I can tell from his twitter account there’s no reason at all to assume he’s a conservative. If you’re going to make any assumption about his politics based on his tweets, it would be that he is a liberal. In one of his tweets he announces that New Zealand legalized same-sex marriage and then in another, he writes “Well done #new Zealand for leading the way!” But to Obeidallah, he’s a conservative because he supports Israel.

Then he goes on to assert that posts in response to Selena Gomez’s “Pray for Gaza” message on Instagram are from right-wing supporters of Israel. He provided a link and I checked it out. Maybe the posts he’s referring to were deleted because I can’t find any directed at Gomez that are vicious or misogynistic, and none that can lead anyone to determine the politics of anyone contributing, unless one assumes everyone who supports Israel is a right-winger. He also describes the following comment published in TMZ as an attempt to “bully the young star to agree with its own politics:”



I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Gomez actually cares what a tabloid like TMZ writes about her, but to suggest that the above comment is an attempt to coerce anyone to agree with them is either another example of Obediallah’s hyperbole, or, if he is personally acquainted with Gomez, an indication of just how feckless the young star may be.

As for the Pew Survey he cites, it’s a huge leap to suggest that because the greatest number of Palestinian supporters (22%) is in the 18-29 age group and most of Stewart’s watchers are in that group too, that Stewart is personally responsible for the 22%.

And because to Obeidallah, anyone supporting Israel must be a right-winger and Stewart is the voice of empathy for Palestinians in America it follows that he would write:



As if the Right is on the lookout for anyone who shows any sympathy for Palestinians and will move to crush them once they appear. He writes of “several” conservative media outlets attacking Stewart but provides only one link. And if you read the linked article in The Daily Caller, you’ll hardly find a hit-piece by Jamie Weinstein. Weinstein points out what immediately crossed my mind when I read Stewart’s crack about Palestinians having to “swim for it” to avoid Israeli bombs. It was what Stewart does, he makes what are serious points (at least to him) using the classic humor device of exaggeration. Clearly the Palestinians who actually heed IDF warning have somewhere to go, and if they leave the targeted building and walk (or run) two or three blocks away, the chances are excellent that they won’t die as a result of the IDF bombing. What Stewart, Obeidallah and a great many supporters of the Palestinians refuse to acknowledge is that some (it’s impossible to know how many) of the civilians killed in these bombings have died because they heeded the call of Hamas to remain in the buildings despite the IDF warnings. It’s disingenuous at best to constantly criticize Israel for civilian deaths without admitting that Hamas wants these deaths and acts in ways to make sure they happen.

http://www.jta.org/2014/07/13/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/hamas-calls-on-palestinian-civilians-to-remain-in-homes-in-face-of-israeli-warningss

I don’t watch Stewart enough to know if has ever called out Hamas for this. He’s not squeamish about criticizing or ridiculing liberals and Democrat politicians and so I would be surprised if he hasn’t, but not once does Obeidallah speak out against Hamas for committing acts inconsistent with his own sense of morality. His article is not an anti-Israel polemic, by any means, but the criticism of Israel and its supporters is implicit and in the case of the latter, explicit.

What you and other critics of Israel actually want is not more discernment in their attacks, but no attacks at all.

You are correct that criticizing Israel is not, necessarily, tantamount to supporting Hamas, although often these things are joined like hand & glove. In fact, of late, Israel’s critics (although not necessarily you) have been just about as quick to write or say “I don’t support Hamas but…” as they have been to write or say “I’m not anti-Semitic but…” Forgive me, if I find these caveats as convincing as “I’ve got nothing against gays but…” or “I have friends who are black but…” You and other critics of Israel may indeed not support Hamas (forgive me as well for, in this small way, questioning the veracity of your claim, but hey, you questioned my humanity, so I don’t think you’ll mind such a comparatively minor offense) but it is difficult to reconcile such claims with hyperbolic accusations of “genocide” and “apartheid” and, more importantly, without any pointed criticism of Hamas or the Palestinians in general. I can appreciate the inclination, however, to focus one’s criticism on the party which is felt to be most at fault, but it does lead to, perhaps inaccurate, assumptions that no fault is found in the other party.

If I might ask. Israel had been there for 50-60 years now? So how come? Have they invaded territory and with their might no one could get them out for so long? Stories are always depending on who is telling them. But there must be facts!

Why don't you bloody research it then? You could start by googling 1967 war.

1000+ dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians, and you don't give a ****. What's there to question?

Islams sold those slaves to Europeans. And Islam also took slaves from their conquests in Europe. Over a million Europeans were enslaved. Remember slavery is a scoff law in Saudi Arabia to this day, and was legal in some Islamic countries until the early 21st century.

There are many more Christians dying in Africa due to genocide by Islamics and you don't give a ****.

That is a good question and in the thread "Israel's Shame," I have indicated that I find Israel's actions and policy toward the settlements to be a mistake and an indication of bad faith.

Israel has stooped to adopt the tactics of the Palestinians by allowing a practice that is not, independently, in the best interests of their nation or their people, but which can be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. Offering to reduce the number of times you hit someone on the head is not exactly indicative of a good faith desire to build a peaceful relationship.

It's pretty clear that Israel with have to make significant concessions regarding the settlements if there is to be a final resolution of this conflict. I think they are prepared to make such concessions, largely because I think the settlements (or at least their expansion) have all along been intended as an eventual bargaining chip. There has already been an indication that Abbas is willing to accept the settlements in East Jerusalem (although he denied this immediately after it was leaked) but he will not and should not do the same as respects the entirety of the West Bank settlements.

I have overlooked the "growing international law system" because I find it totally irrelevant. It is unenforceable and overwhelmingly its use is confined to instances when it serves nations' self-interest. Nations that will file complaints in International courts will, at the same time, refuse to subject themselves to such courts' jurisdiction in respect to other matters. It is used far more as a political tool than a means to promote justice.

You make a valid point though as respects those who argue that Israel owes its legitimacy as a nation to the UN. I don't happen to make this argument, but I also do not argue for the legitimacy of the settlements. In fact I don't give a fig for the "legitimacy" of the settlements. They are an act of bad-faith and an unnecessary impediment to peace and should be given up by Israel.

Golan was territory seized from Syria during the 6 Day War and while there is an unresolved dispute as to whether the war was started by Israel as a means to extend its borders (and possibly divert domestic attention away from a faltering economy) or was begun by preemptively by Israel, it was for quite some time offered to Syria in return for a peace accord, just as the Sinai was returned to Egypt. Syria never accepted the offer and now it is probably off the table for all time.

Jordan dropped its claim on the West Bank as part of its peace deal with Israel. I realize that an international court didn't recognize that to be a factor in the matter of the legality of Israel's annexation of the territory, so I would have to assume that the same court would have held that Jordan's "possession" of the territory prior to the 6 Day War was illegal. Who did they steal it from?

Has international law and the International Court of Law been successful in dislodging China from Tibet, or Russia from Georgia? Will they be successful in the Ukraine's bid to "legally" force Russia to return Crimea?

The obvious retort will be "Are you equating Israel with Russia and China?," to which my answer would be, of course not. I point out the matters of China and Russia only to demonstrate the essential impotency of international law, even though I am so sure that those who call for Israel to totally vacate the West Bank and Golan Heights are just as loudly calling for China to vacate Tibet and Russia to vacate Georgia and the Ukraine, because they, of course, would never seek to selectively apply international law based on politics.

I just read this article by an Israeli writer - I agree with him, but then I would.
He also helped me remember the name of another Israeli writer I was interested in, David Grossman (and his writing about his son, some time ago now.)

In my looking today at the New Yorker website, this was posted as most popular now -
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/israels-other-war?src=mp

PAGE-TURNER
July 25, 2014
Israel’s Other War
BY ETGAR KERET

In the past week I’ve seen and heard the popular statement “let the I.D.F. win” more and more frequently. It’s been posted on social media, spray-painted on walls, and chanted in demonstrations. Lots of young people are quoting it on Facebook, and they seem to think it’s a phrase that arose in response to the current military operation in Gaza. But I’m old enough to remember how it evolved: first formulated as a bumper sticker, and later turning into a mantra. Of course, this slogan is not addressed to Hamas or to the international community—it’s intended for Israelis, and it contains within it the twisted world view that has been guiding Israel for the past twelve years.

The first erroneous assumption it contains is that there are some people in Israel who are preventing the Army from winning. These supposed saboteurs could be me, my neighbor, or any other person who questions the premise and purpose of this war. All these weirdos, daring to ask questions or raise concerns regarding the conduct of our government, tying our military’s capable hands with nagging op-eds and defeatist calls for humanity and empathy, are allegedly the only thing separating the I.D.F. from a perfect victory.

The second, much more dangerous idea that this slogan contains is that the I.D.F. actually could win. “We’re prepared to receive all these missiles non-stop,” many southern-Israelis keep saying on the news, “as long as we can finish this, once and for all.”

Twelve years, five operations against Hamas (four of them in Gaza), and still we have this same convoluted slogan. Young men who were only first-graders during Operation Defensive Shield are now soldiers invading Gaza by land. In each of these operations there have been right-wing politicians and military commentators who pointed out that “this time we’ll have to pull all the stops, take it all the way, until the end.” Watching them on television, I can’t help but ask myself, What is this end they’re striving toward? Even if each and every Hamas fighter is taken out, does anyone truly believe that the Palestinian people’s aspiration for national independence will disappear with them? Before Hamas, we fought against the P.L.O., and after Hamas, assuming, hopefully, that we’re still around, we’ll probably find ourselves fighting against another Palestinian organization. The Israeli military can win the battles, but peace and quiet for the citizens of Israel will only be achieved through political compromise. But this, according to the patriotic powers running the current war, is something that we’re not supposed to say, because this kind of talk is precisely what’s stopping the I.D.F. from winning. Ultimately, when this operation is over and the tally is taken of the many dead bodies, on our side and theirs, the accusing finger will once again be pointed at us, the saboteurs.

In 2014, in Israel, the definition of legitimate discourse has changed entirely. Discussion is divided between those who are “pro-I.D.F.” and those who are against it. Right-wing thugs chanting “death to Arabs” and “death to leftists” on the streets of Jerusalem or Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s call to boycott Arab-Israeli businesses protesting the operation in Gaza are considered patriotic, while demands to stop the operation or mere expressions of empathy about the deaths of women and children in Gaza are perceived as a betrayal against flag and country. We are faced with the false, anti-democratic equation that argues that aggression, racism, and lack of empathy mean love of the homeland, while any other opinion—especially one that does not encourage the use of power and the loss of soldiers’ lives—is nothing less than an attempt to destroy Israel as we know it.

At times it seems that there are two wars going on. On one front, the military is battling against Hamas. On the other, a government minister, who called Arab colleagues “terrorists” on the floor of the Knesset, and hooligans who intimidate peace activists on social media, jointly persecute “the enemy within”: anyone who speaks differently. There is no doubt that Hamas is posing a threat to our safety and to our children’s safety, but can the same thing be said about entertainers such as the comedian Orna Banai, the singer Achinoam Nini, or my wife, the film director Shira Geffen, all of whom were vilified in hateful and menacing ways when they publicly expressed dismay about the deaths of Palestinian children? Do the extreme attacks against them constitute another defense necessary for our survival, or are they merely a dark outburst of hate and rage? Are we really so weak and scared that any opinion that differs from the consensus must be muted, lest it provoke death threats against not only those voicing it, but their children as well?

Many people tried to convince me not to publish this piece. “You have a little boy,” one of my friends told me last night. “Sometimes it’s better to be smart than to be right.” I’ve never been right, and I must not be too smart, either, but I am willing to fight for my right to express my opinion with the same ferocity that the I.D.F. is now showing in Gaza. This war is not about my own personal opinion, which may be wrong or pathetic. It’s for this place where I live, and which I love.

On August 10, 2006, near the end of the Second Lebanon War, the writers Amos Oz, A. B. Yehoshua, and David Grossman held a press conference in which they urged the government to reach an immediate ceasefire. I was in a taxi and heard the report on the radio. The driver said, “What do those pieces of **** want, huh? They don’t like the Hezbollah suffering? These assholes want nothing more than to hate our country.” Five days later, David Grossman buried his son in the military plot at the Mount Herzl cemetery. Apparently that “piece of ****” wanted a few other things than to hate this country. Most importantly, he wanted his son, like so many other young men who were killed in those last, superfluous days of fighting, to come home alive.

It’s an awful thing to make a truly tragic mistake, one that costs many lives. It’s worse to make that same mistake over and over again. Four operations in Gaza, an immense number of Israeli and Palestinian hearts that have stopped beating, and we keep ending up in the same place. The only thing that actually changes is Israeli society’s tolerance for criticism. It’s become clear during this operation that the right wing has lost its patience in all matters regarding that elusive term, “freedom of speech.” In the past two weeks, we’ve seen right wingers beating left wingers with clubs, Facebook messages promising to send left-wing activists to the gas chambers, and denunciations of anyone whose opinion delays the military on its way to victory. It turns out that this bloody road we walk from operation to operation is not as cyclical as we may have once thought. This road is not a circle, it’s a downward spiral, leading to new lows, which, I’m sad to say, we’ll be unlucky enough to experience.

A version of this piece appeared in Hebrew in Yediot Ahronot. Translated by Yardenne Greenspan.

Sorry for my ignorance. What are they doing in Africa?

Google "Boko Haram" and then try "Christian persecution"

Maybe they are really as poor as the Clintons.
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-the-phenomenal-wealth-of-hamas-leaders-1000957953

You're mistaking me for someone who talks to low life crap like you.

Your arrogance and stupidity and denial are legendary.

Boko Haram has been carrying out all sorts of atrocities in Africa. Western governments have naturally condemned such action, and are helping the legitimate governments deal with the problem, particularly the French in Mali.

This stands in stark contrast with their muted response to Israel, because buttfeatures is mentally subnormal he thinks he can prove a point by mentioning Africa. The only point he's proving is that he's got **** for brains.

It points out your hypocrisy. Governments are helping Israel and the Palestinians too. What good is that doing? Like in the African nations where their governments are scared of the Islamic terrorists? Israel is not.

Our and Israels reality.


http://someofmyessays.blogspot.com/

The only point you're proving is that you've got **** for brains.