The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[4WiccanLuv]

Quote:

---

Julian Petley, chairman of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, tells the British newspaper The Guardian. "So if we allow into Britain the kind of journalism represented by Fox, that would bring about a form of censorship ."



Petley's group is among those leading the charge to have FNC taken off air, though ITC officials say that all complaints will be investigated fully before any action is taken.

---

Broadcasting Freedom?? Contradiction at its best. If Fox News offends so many, don't watch, there are plenty of other news sources from which to choose. Kicking them out is censorship. And Lord forbid any signs of patriotism, that would just be wrong. [add sarcasm] Personally, seeing the American flag anywhere, is never offensive to me.



There is bias on all sides of the reporting spectrum, whether it supports or opposes this war or any other.

_____________


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty." - John F. JFK

[darkmagicwillow]

It definitely is censorship as always happens in times of conflict. Witness the "Patriot" Act in the US. I find it ironic that a US ally is censoring a US news channel, instead of the more common censorship of the views of opponents such as the unavailability of Al Jazeera in the US as compared to the EU, but ironic or not, I can't support this action even though Fox's coverage is overly simplistic and appalling jingoistic.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[xita]

I am not sure, I mean they aren't as bad but could we have a Klan Man's newschannel? I guess maybe a better solution would be to get a newschannel with the same bias but on the left side of things. It is sad that you have to tune in to radio to get that point of view.

[Gatito Grande]

Re: Fox "News", I think a middle ground could be found (and this would work anywhere). Don't yank it off the air (the forbidden fruit quality could create a backlash), just superimpose a frame around the screen that says something like "This is strictly opinion and propaganda, not news, as there are no attempts at objectivity whatsoever."

Quote:

---

Personally, seeing the American flag anywhere, is never offensive to me.

---

4WL, see what I said earlier about "this is our (American) world, you (fur'ners) just live in it." If you believe this, then I can see why you would think it would be a great thing to see the American flag waving in another country (perhaps from their---former---Parliament or Prime Minister's residence?). Dubya's/Rummy's military is really bringing the 16th century form of "I claim this land for ______!" flag-planting back in style. [I see your sarcasm, and raise you a ]



GG Honestly, is it possible that the Government of the U.S.A. does *not* have all the answers? Does being the sole superpower free us from having any humility whatsoever? If Might makes Right, why shouldn't those who disagree with the U.S. simply kill Americans any and every way they can? This just isn't the kind of world I'd like to leave our children and grandchildren. Out

[darkmagicwillow]

While I wouldn't watch it, I would have to say that the KKK has as much of a legal right (moral rightness is another question of course) as any other organization to broadcast their views. I don't know if the FCC would let them, but IMO the majority of the FCC's actions are unconstitutional violations of freedom of speech from selling off the broadcast spectrum to censoring radio and TV programs.

---

4WL, see what I said earlier about "this is our (American) world, you (fur'ners) just live in it."

---

Americans as a whole embrace this view just as the British did before us. I recently finished Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India, to get a view on earlier British invasions (1838 and 1878) and occupations of Afghanistan, and to see how the British managed to conquer and rule India (mostly through native rulers, btw, in just the way the US rules Afghanistan and now Iraq.) Now I'm reading E.M. Forster's A Passage to India, which does an excellent job of portraying the unconscious prejudice of the British rulers of India, from both the perspective of the Indians and from a few unprejudiced Brits.



I'm not sure that this attitude can be avoided in an imperial power, especially one that denies what it is, but what worries me more is American paranoia. The average person on the street actually believes that the US needs to have a navy larger than the combined navies of the rest of the world and an unparalleled air force, even though no hostile country borders the US and no invading foreign soldier has set foot on the soil of any US state since 1812.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 5/10/03 3:12:27 pm

[4WiccanLuv]

Quote:

---

4WL, see what I said earlier about "this is our (American) world, you (fur'ners) just live in it." If you believe this, then I can see why you would think it would be a great thing to see the American flag waving in another country

---

GG, I have seen hundreds of foreign flags waved in this country, happens all the time, i.e. sporting events, concerts, politcal marches and rallies, etc...all this says to me is that people are proud of what their flags represent. Why should the American flag not have the same right?

[more sarcasm] I call your and raise you a

_____________


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty." - John F. JFK

[Gatito Grande]

Well, as promised, here's my take on "the Middle East" (i.e., "How to avoid WWIII"). I have an academic background in both international politics and interreligious relations---however, I am *nothing* like an expert. I'm simply a human being who is sick of war and bloodshed, and the injustice which breeds them. All my opinions, and they are only that, arise out of a desire for peace w/ justice for *all human beings, everywhere.* But since war and bloodshed are currently being mass-produced in the Middle East (and "ground zero" is Israel/Palestine), that's where I will focus.



What's less important than human life? Damn near *everything*, and it is in this context I present the following rant:



Let's begin with what is not at issue and that, w/ supreme irony, is the (borders of the) Final Peace Agreement: everyone, and I mean everyone w/ the slightest shred of intelligence (and even less conscience) know that the solution is two states, Israel in its 1967 borders, Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza, w/ some kind of division/sharing of Jerusalem.



Everybody knows this: so why hasn't it happened?



There are two conventional-wisdom answers in the U.S.: 1) the Democratic one, to blame "extremists on both sides" or 2) the Republican one, to blame "Palestinian terrorists" (a subset of Arab/Muslim terrorists).



These are the conventional answers, and they are both wrong. To understand why, we have to look closer at the (only possible) Final Agreement. For while it is the *only* solution, it is not a *just* one.



Why? Because the State of Israel's mere existence is UNJUST. As a political entity, Israel owes its existence to the victors of WWII (primarily the U.S. and Britain, w/ the USSR playing its own angle) trying to do a bunch of unshady things at once: 1)assuage their guilt over letting the Holocaust happen (when they weren't actively colluding w/ it), 2) rid themselves of some of their own Jews and/or control them via this issue (see the USSR), 3) wash their hands of the most visible kind of colonialism, while 4) still enjoying its (profitable) benefits. It was all about the "Great Game," and if a few Jews (and many more Arabs) died, who gave a damn? Only American Jews did, and as long as more Arabs died and Israeli Jews came out on top . . .



So, there you have it: Israel shouldn't exist, yet it does. At no point in the last 50 plus years have U.S./Israel ties seriously been threatened, and even if they were, Israel is still too strong, militarily, to be budged (Israel has something like 100 nuclear bombs). The tragic, unjust existence of the Jewish State has provoked an excruciating "cognitive dissonance" throughout much of the world: not just in its Arab and Muslim parts, but among all the peoples that have overcome colonialism in the 20th (or 21st) century. At a time when European/American colonialism was being tossed just about everywhere else on the planet, it was moving into Palestine. World consensus said NO! to colonialism, yet it sprouted anew in this one, exceptional case. One simply cannot underestimate the bitterness this irony provokes . . .



. . . and for over 40 years, most Palestinians couldn't accept it. The rightness of their cause, that of a (in the main) secular Palestine, for Arabs (Muslim and Christian et al.), Jews (religious et al), and a few other ethno-religious minorities, both predicted their ultimate victory, and required they fight for it. Yet U.S.-backed Israel triumphed militarily again and again, and finally compelled thinking Palestinians to look for a new path . . .



. . . while the non-thinking Palestinians (violent Islamist fanatics and/or vicious anti-Jewish bigots) grew in both numbers and bile. The discrepancy between Israeli military power, and its near-total absence among Palestinians dictated, w/ grim predictability, that Palestinians' armed struggle would be waged against "soft targets," i.e. terrorism against civilians.



. . . and that Israel, in its predictable rage against civilian losses, would wage war against Palestinians in a bloodily-indiscriminate manner.



Why would one kill yourself via terror? Worse, why would one kill innocents (esp. children) in the process? I think we'd all like to believe that we could never sink so low. But then (speaking for myself) I'm not a Palestinian. I didn't



-lose my ancestral property (of hundreds of years) in 1948-on, and/or

-find myself in a state where my religion/ethnicity automatically made me officially second-class (Israeli Arabs, whom Ariel Sharon called "a cancer" just this week)

-find myself pushed into some of the worst (agricultural) lands in the region, w/ few resources w/ which to fend for myself (*NB: the whole world, inc. the Arab nations, share blame for the abject poverty of so many Palestinian refugees, lo these five-plus decades)

-then have these (sh*ttier) lands fall under harsh Israeli military occupation in 1967

-losing even the better parts of *these* lands to increasing numbers of Israeli settlers (who tend to be among the most fanatic, Arab-hating of all Israelis), who become gun-in-your-face "neighbors"



This is the context for Palestinians going into "Oslo," the accords reached in 1992-93. Palestinian leaders, inc. Yasser Arafat, decided to cut their losses (which were threatening their very lives as a people), for the Two-State Solution even if it meant accepting the injustice of Israel's existence, and thereby, realizing that the vast majority of Palestinians would never be able to claim ownership of those ancestral homes ever again.



I speak of the "Right of Return": the cornerstone of Israeli citizenship (when applied to Jews coming from anywhere on earth), absolutely verboten by Israel in terms of Palestinians coming back those ancestral homes/land in Israel.



It's very difficult for most Americans to understand ties to "native soil," when descended, as most of us are, from immigrants. And yet, as far as the policies of the U.S. are concerned, we've accepted it vis-a-vis Jews "Right of Return" to Israel (too many annual viewings of Charleton Heston in The Ten Commandments, I guess). That Palestinians could feel the same way doesn't register, or if it does, its simply dismissed (as by many American Evangelicals) as the sinful urges of God's Unelect. (An aside: The Christian Right believe that every one of those non-Christ-believing Israelis are headed for Hell's Lake o' Fire ---it's just that the Palestinian heathen will get broiled there first ).



Where was I? Oslo. In the terms of that discussion, there was no real way beyond the intractability of the "Right of Return" issue (to say nothing of Jerusalem), and yet the two sides were supposed to "build trust." The fact that the Palestinians were discussing a Two-State solution *at all* was a great sacrifice, which was totally ignored by Israel (and more shamefully by Israel's American backers). Moreover, the Palestinian Authority, only being invented in piece-meal fashion, was supposed to have immediate and total control over all Palestinian actions.



Meanwhile, Israel was treating Oslo's timetable for action (i.e. Israel beginning to pullback from any new settlements) as less than even a *suggestion*. All they had to do, was declare that the Palestinian Authority "wasn't doing enough" about security issues, and they would let another deadline for pulling back from the Occupied Territories pass. Labor or Likud, it didn't matter much: Israel ignored their end of the bargain, and the U.S. said nothing (or actively took Israel's side).



Summer 2000, Camp David, Maryland: President Clinton (a lamer duck than most lame duck U.S. Presidents) brings together Israeli (Labor) Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and PA Pres Arafat to hammer out a deal, "before it's too late." Ever since, the Israeli and much of the U.S. conventional wisdom will be "the Palestinians don't want peace."



Many Palestinians don't. The loss and bitterness and deprivation have created scores of young Palestinians, who would literally rather die than go on, and kill as many Israelis as possible in the process.



However, I believe that more Palestinians do want to live in peace, a peace w/ dignity. And that dignity brings us back to the Original Tragedy of the Middle East: that Israel *Should* Not Exist. Until the Israelis (and their American backers) can accept that, they will never understand the ocean of grief that Palestinians must cross in order to accept the Two-State Solution. Only when Israelis/Americans understand that, will they know that



*Palestinians will NEVER accept one square millimeter less than all of the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza. This means every single Israeli settler w/o exception OUT of the territories.



*True creativity will be demanded in agreeing on 1) Jerusalem, and 2) the "Right of (Palestinian's) Return"



1) If Jerusalem is not to go back to the 1967 division (and, for environmental factors alone, it probably shouldn't), something more radical will have to be tried. I personally believe in *some kind of internationalization* as the best solution (I may be biased as a Christian, but I believe that Jerusalem would have been a far better site for the U.N. than is New York City, or Geneva). Some kind of international presence will be needed to make sure that everybody has access to their holy sites (and keeping the peace between the parties), while maintaining a unified infrastructure as *a city* (not separate cities, or a pre-89 Berlin). This will cost Big Bucks, but nearly as much as



2)Paying for "R of R" solutions. I don't think there is any possible "one size fits all" solution here, and no one should try to force all Palestinians to accept one. For many, a generous market-value compensation for property lost will be the best deal. However, others would rather accept "Israeli Arab" status for a mere *chance* at getting their family's land back, and I think a *controlled number* should be able to try. Maybe some kind of annual lottery, to let x number of families back into Israel (w/ appropriate security considerations/ clearances). Additionally, Palestinian families should be able to either 1) exhume family graves and move 'em if they want to (paid for by Israel), or conversely 2) have family graves *protected by law*.



The costs in $$$ will be *huge*, and needless to say, beyond Israel's ability to pay in total. The U.S. must be willing to pay every bit as much as we're paying Israel to be a Colonial Occupier now, but much more, as the $$$ we've given to Israel in the past has contributed to making things as bad as they are now. But then again, the U.S. saves $$$$$ by being far less a target of terror (to say nothing of not getting involved in WWIII).



Even more than paying for such a real solution, the international community (but mainly the U.S.) must guarantee a REAL TIMETABLE for such agreements to be carried out. This is the untold story of Camp David 2000 (and all that preceded it): Palestinians saw nothing more than the same fake-*ss psuedo-commitments as before. Unreal words on a calendar that Israel would reserve the right to ignore as they did previously.



What, one might ask, does Israel get out of this? Well, duh, peace: real peace, not the Peace of Superior Firepower. "Israel as a Member of the Family of Nations" Peace. Peace wherein those (few, though *inevitable*) remaining acts of terror committed against Israelis are mourned, and their perpetrators *loathed* (and then apprehended) by everybody, planet-wide. A peace that the Arab nations would not let Palestinians screw-up, even if they (an idiot/fiendish few) tried.



Maybe even an "Israel's Existence is a Blessing, Not a Tragedy" Peace (aka Shalom)



GG At least until the world gets rid of the frickin' criminally-obsolete *Nation-State System* altogether: I should live so long! Out



I welcome all Kittens' dialogue, but especially those who live in the Middle East. I have but one request: that you focus the discussion on *solutions*, not interpretations of history---which I know can vary all over the map (as it were). Salaam/Shalom/Peace y'all!

[wa star]

Ahh, GG?



Wasn't your last post just a little bit anti-Semitic? Jews have been living in the Middle East forever, including in what is now Israel. Shouldn't they get the chance to have their own nation? (this, however, is not an excuse to occupy the West Bank or kick the poor Palestinians around in any way)





On the most basic level, the Middle East is made up of a great many different tribes (ethnic and religious groups), who all want the same thing-- a nation to call their own.



Looking at the groups who have traditionally gotten the short end of the stick in the ME power games, Jews, Coptic Christians, Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Shaa Muslims and a plethra of smaller groups--- the problem is much, much greater than Jew vs. Arab.



It doesn't justify the the piss poor treatment of the Palestinians, but in the last century, the Jews suffered huge losses-- in Eruope and all over the Middle East (In 1900 there were over 1 million Jews in Iran-- most have been driven out or killed)



Please don't say that the Jews don't have a right to their own nation!



(but then again, I support nation rights for the Palestinians and Kurds just as much)



Everybody wants a place to call home.

[darkmagicwillow]

---

Ahh, GG? Wasn't your last post just a little bit anti-Semitic?

---

No, GG's not being anti-Semitic. There are three issues involved with Israel and its ruling people: their ethnicity (Semitic), their religion (Judaism), and their nationality (Zionist). Her post is anti-Zionist, which is completely different being anti-Semitic. The confusion of the two is actually one of the main aims of Israeli propaganda, as Noam Chomsky explains better than I could in an article I take a short quote from here:

---

With regard to anti-Semitism, the distinguished Israeli statesman Abba Eban pointed out the main task of Israeli propaganda (they would call it exclamation, what’s called ‘propaganda’ when others do it) is to make it clear to the world there’s no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. By anti-Zionism he meant criticisms of the current policies of the State of Israel. So there’s no difference between criticism of policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism, because if he can establish ‘that’ then he can undercut all criticism by invoking the Nazis and that will silence people.

---

As for me, I'm against nationalism in general. This pernicious idea has caused immense pain and suffering in the 20th century and it looks like the 21st century is going to experience as many wars as its predecessor for this concept too.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 5/13/03 9:56:46 am

[wa star]

darkwillowmagic,





Oh, I'm not as completely sure about the difference between being anti-Semtic and anti-Zoinist as Mr. Chomsky is. I personally think that the solution lies with the millions of moderately Zoinist Jews living in Israel who will wake up and smell the coffee--- and give back the West Bank and Gaza, build a 100ft high wall between Israel and the new Palestinian nation and just be done with it.



I'm not a big supporter of nationalism ether, but I'm afraid that's not going to help anything. Nationalism just is, and it's not going anywhere... we need to deal with it.



GG,



First I call you *girlfriend* and now I call you anti-Semitic. After reading my last post, I feel I was kinda mean. Sorry. You do know you're a fab poster who I always read?



As far as solutions go, I'm not too upbeat because of the Bush failures in Afganistan and Iraq. First of all, the US must help rebuild these two Muslim nations to gain a level of trust currently missing in the Middle East/ American relationship.



Next, the new roadmap to peace happens-- without debate, using US millitary action if needed. Both sides have talked and talked, and the time has come for both the Palestinian and Israeli sides to start *making* peace. Settlements need to be stopped/torn down, terrorists groups need to disarm, and the Bush Administration needs to just close this mess out.



But I'm not holding my breath...

[darkmagicwillow]

The basic idea is that objecting to the policies or even existence of the state of Israel can come from reasons other than racism (anti-semitism). I think that over a half century of conflict has made it clear that the creation of the state of Israel was a bad idea. While the Nazis were terrible, the idea that a people have a claim to land because their ancestors occupied it a couple of thousand years ago is absurd and we've seen the results of believing that.



I've talked with a fair number of people who live in current day Israel and they told me that both Israelis and Palestinians know what's required for settlement, and that it's only a matter of time before the older generation loses power and they can settle. It sounded optimistic to me, but I suspect you have to be optimistic on this subject to live there.



As for nationalism, one of the things that can be done about it is not giving every ethnic group their own state as well as encouraging countries to unite instead of divide like the EU is doing. Ideas can be fought, and if all you can do is discourage people you know from believing in them, then that's still important. The world changes a person at a time.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 5/13/03 4:58:51 pm

[wa star]

darkmagicwillow,



I guess Israel was a bad idea....unless you're Jewish, unless you live there, unless much of the mythology you happen to believe in depends on your people having their own nation.



Then Israel is the greatest invention of the last century! (and besides millions of Jews, many born-again Christians in the US support Israel blindly and even think that the never ending ME conflict is going to bring Christ back sooner)



The whole damn thing just makes me tired and hacked off at everything.



This last Gulf War has personally cost me so much-- my business is doing crappy (I'm pretty broke) and I get this basic gut level fear about Bush and the whole Republican Party-- that somehow my life, my choices, my beliefs are somehow in danger becuase of this *war on terrorism*



Had enough of Saddam, Al Quaeda, Hamas, the IDF, Fox new channel, WoMDs, ect....



sorry everybody, it's just too freakin' much for me to think about anymore.

[Gatito Grande]

dmw has pretty much defended my "GG solves the MidEast" post better than I ever could, so I don't have too much more to say about it. wa star, I'm not offended, sweetie. Hasn't just about everyone on the Kitten been called far worse at sometime or other? I know your is in the right place.



My last line of the post was about doing away with the nation-state system. People may question whether that's possible, but I say, how can we not??? Something like SARS, traveling around the planet w/ record speed, killing left and right, shows the folly of depending on separate states when our problems are so global.



It's in this context ("nation-states are anachronistic, crazy, and just plain wrong") that I abhor the formation of the *STATE* of Israel. Note: Jews in Palestine---whether ancient and continuous, or even immigrating there more recently (within reason)---are *not* the issue. Jews certainly have the right to live in Palestine. They even (possibly) could be a controlling electoral bloc there. That's just not the same as having a nation-state that they define---wherein non-Jews living there are automatically second-class. (It was wrong in the American South, it was wrong in South Africa, it's wrong for Christians in Sudan, and it's wrong in Israel: human rights uber alles!). A homeland is not the same as a State. Homelands can be *shared*, in the way "the Jewish State" cannot.



Finally, wa star, I understand your depression about "things the way they are" (I believe Tom Robbins put it in Even Cowgirls Get the Blues "the international situation was desparate, as usual"). However, I think a bunch of things that you've "had enough of" draw their fury from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. By focusing on solving this one, and---you are an American, aren't you, wa star, or am I just assuming?---by voting for U.S. politicians who will do so, fairly, we can go a long way towards putting all this sh*t behind us (and work on new sh*t---like SARS, AIDS, and global warming!).



GG Get rid of the nation-state system, and put *all those freakin' flags* in a museum, where they belong!!! Out

[wa star]

Oh GG!



The wa in wa star stands for Washington State, so I'm on the Left Coast (I'm a big T. Robbins fan as well)



I personally will ALWAYS vote and NEVER vote for a member of the Homo-hating party (also know as the GOP or Gay Opposition Party)



I know that we kittens aren't suppost to use name calling or attack other people's opinions, and it may look like I'm doing a major broadside on the Republican Party.....



...but I'm not. It's just that Republicans hate me, and I feel like I have to avoid them at all costs. That means always voting Democrat. Even for turds like G. Davis. Even for a howler monkey if it comes down to that.



The bad news is that that our current crop of Democrats are so freakin' gutless and whimpy. Bare in mind that this comes form a guy who wears undies with little bows in the front and rides a pink bicycle, so I know exstreme whimpiness when I see it.



I'm just so bummed out right now becuase it seems like the narrow minded and mean people in the world always get their way. It's just so freakin' easy to go through life with blinders on, to join some mega evangalical church next to the mall, live in some McMansion on some cul de sac, vote Republican and avoid all gays, minoritities, or anyone else who could complicate raising your family.



Why am I cursed with this freaky wonderful goodness?

[darkmagicwillow]

If you're an American and you're interested in who owns "your" representatives, check out www.opensecrets.org. Particularly relevant to this thread is the list of contributions from those companies who are rebuilding Iraq.



ETA: On Monday, the FCC will likely reduce restrictions on media ownership, allowing companies like Fox to acquire more control over the news and deliver more of their wonderful war advertisements. There's an article from the Guardian.



"War is a sociological safety valve that cleverly diverts popular hatred for the ruling classes into a happy occasion to mutilate or kill foreign enemies." Ernest Becker

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 5/30/03 7:26:33 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Anybody happen to notice that *9* Americans were killed by hostile action this week in the Land of Our Great Victory???





And the "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? I believe the following doggerel will explain:



Last month I saw across Iraq,

the "W.M.D." that weren't, in fact.

They weren't in fact, again this week.

I think this so-called "intel" reeks!





GG Belated Memorial Day Commemoration: to add no more new dead to be remembered Out

[Kieli]

Isn't the word intel actually a misnomer in this case? Seems to me, it would imply intelligence on the part of the gatherers and methinks something is a bit amiss. Quite interesting post GG....I agree with some of it but not all. Tonight is not the night for me to go into details....I need more sleep for that But, for the most part, well said, my friend, well said indeed. .



Cheers!

Toni

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Aradia785]

We're still looking for weapons of mass destruction? I thought we wanted to "liberate" the Iraqi people. Weapons or liberate? Weapons or liberate? Damn I'm confused! Would someone mind spinning some propaganda in my direction, please. *Sits with head in hands* Argh, stupid migranes



Didn't know if anyones seen this: A few days ago, your friend and mine, Wolfowitz gave an interview with Vanity Fair (Wolfowitz is probably the US's biggest supporter for going to IraQ). And there's a nice little quote where he says that "Going through the 'weapons of mass destruction route was initially used as our main reason because it was the only reason that everyone could agree with to give the public. It was the one that we could count on for the most public support. "(summed up version). Makes you wonder what the other reasons were.



Ann

If I hear that Gong of Doom I will send stoned squirrels to raid your kitchen
- Lisa of Nine

Operation Free MyRack! Who wants to join the coalition of the willing?

[GiftofAmber]

GG--I completely and respectfully disagree with every word you said.



I firmly believe that Israel has every right to exist. The current media appears to be very biased toward the Palestinian radicals, which just outright scares me. I personally think that the current media turn is a result of the fear induced by Sept 11th rather than a "desire for peace".



Perhaps the state of Israel was not formed in an appropriate manner--but the same could be said for many countries. The Jews have been kicked out of country after country over the centuries. The Arabs have plenty of states, Christianity has the USA, Jews have exactly one state--Israel--the ONE place no one can kick them out of. I don't think that's such a terrible thing. To define the difficulty as merely the result of "oppression", would far simplify the problem. "Oppression" has occurred all over the globe, and has not produced such extreme radicalists.



The radical Palestinians lost my respect as a result of the Yom Kippur war. Yes, the Israeli military was far superior and a direct attack would have been futile--but Jews have fought superior armies before and won without resorting to attacking on the holiest day of the year. The Jewish equivalent of attacking on Christmas.



I am all for peace in the Middle East, but I am not willing to sacrifice Israel for that peace.



Just as a bit of analogy: look at American treatment of the Indians. We created a "state" on their land, treated (some argue still do) them far worse than second-class citizens, and we feel bad about that.....but if they were a little less peaceful, would you honestly say that you'd give up the United States? I don't think so--I think we'd look at changing some of the laws, but I don't think I'd give up the idea completely.

[Gatito Grande]

GofA, please excuse a really brief reply, as that's all I have time for now.



Does Israel have the legal right to exist? Yes, by international law.



Does Israel have the practical "right" to exist? Absolutely, there's no peace in the Middle East without it.



Does Israel have the *moral* right to exist? Emphatically NO---but with the please-do-not-listen-to-anything-I-say-here-without-the-following caveat (in the form of a question):



What nations, in 2003, have the moral right to exist? NONE of them . . . because *in 2003*, the nation-state system is a criminally negligent way to organize the planet. For biodiversity, for indigenous peoples, for the relief of human suffering (AIDS, SARS, famines anyone?), for economic justice, for future generations . . . *ALL* nation-states have got to go!



GG You can't mean that the U.S. media (aka "All Arabs are terrorists/All Israelis are victims, All-The-Time" ) is biased in favor of Palestinians---can you? If I didn't have access to the BBC (CBC sometimes), I wouldn't know jack re: what's really happening in the Mideast. Thank you Beeb! Out

[darkmagicwillow]

I'm amazed by the idea that the U.S. media is biased against Israel. American media has been incredibly pro-Israel compared to the media of the rest of the world for so long that it's a surprise to see some concern over the Palestinians' plight. Check out the European media for a very different perspective on this issue if you think American media is anti-Israel.



While U.S. treatment of the Native Americans has been horrifying and continues to be poor, they have been granted many of their own states which do not have to obey the laws of the corresponding U.S. states which border them. They don't have complete autonomy, but I'm not sure that most of them desire that status.



In the end, almost every modern country's ownership of its land rests on right of conquest. Israel took its land from the Arabs, but they in turn took it from the Romans. Only a few exceptional and minor cases of island nations like Iceland does it rest on right of settlement. Every ethnic group has moved and occupied the land of other groups; the Native Americans only seem different if we consider them in a block, instead of treating them as the hundreds of nations and tribes which they were and still are to some extent. You can't roll back time because it only reveals another conquerer. After all, the Israelites took the land from their predecessors, the Canaanites.



If the Jews deserve their own state, what about all the other small ethnic and religious groups? There are more Sikhs in the world as Jews, yet very few concern themselves over the 1947 partition of Punjab between Islamic Pakistan and Hindu India, forcing millions of Sikhs to flee their ancestral homes. The death toll from that time remains uncertain though estimates range around a million, and over a quarter million have been killed since 1984. And if American media is biased against Israel, why do we hear so much about them and not about places like Punjab and the Sikhs?

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 5/31/03 3:47:56 pm

[GiftofAmber]

I agree that traditionally speaking, the US media has been pro-Israel. I am bothered by the fact that the media appears to be going in the opposite direction--not unbiased, mind you: I wouldn't have a problem with unbiased--but it appears to be pro-Palestinian and pro-terrorist (I do separate the two). Is the European media even more anti-Israel? Yes, of course. I am not disputing that, for one because I do not have access to the BBC.



Hearing about the country doesn't mean the media is for or against something: just that they know the audience wants to know about it. That is probably why we don't hear much about the Sikh or other ethnic minorities. Should other minorities have their own state? Well, are they peaceful provided they are not under attack by someone else? If so, then yes.



GG--I would be interested to hear your alternative to nation-states.

[darkmagicwillow]

Actually, coverage or lack thereof of issues is the most effective and most commonly used tool the media has for biasing its coverage. If you don't ever hear about the Sikhs, you can hardly request more coverage about them, much less object to their treatment. There's a famous Noam Chomsky quote on how the American media manipulates its coverage:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

As for giving minorities their own states, the problem is that no ethnic groups live isolated from all other ethnic groups (again, Iceland and a few other islands are exceptions), with Israel's mixture of Jews, Arabs, and Palestinian Christians being an obvious case of this problem. As China has tried with Tibet, Israel has tried the usual measures of moving Arabs out of predominantly Jewish areas and settling Jews in the predominantly Arab occupied territories to improve their claims to both types of land. I can't see a solution through giving every minority their own state, and it's clear that the Israeli government doesn't want one.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

I agree that traditionally speaking, the US media has been pro-Israel. I am bothered by the fact that the media appears to be going in the opposite direction--not unbiased, mind you:

---

I can understand and respect such an opinion if you were also bothered before because of the strong pro-Israel stance of the media. But if you are only now becoming bothered because the bias is turning into the opposite direction which you don't happen to like, then it's pretty hypocritical.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't have a problem with unbiased--but it appears to be pro-Palestinian and pro-terrorist (I do separate the two).

---

I really doubt that there is any media in the US that is pro terrorist because most Americans wouldn't read/listen/watch anymore, there would be calls for boycotts and Ashcroft would have collected anyone who made his terrorist sympathies public.

Quote:

---

Is the European media even more anti-Israel?

---

The European media is believed to be traditionally more pro-Palestinian, which I think is different from being anti-Israel. I don't really see it. We get the coverage of every suicide attack with all the suffering and damages it caused, as well as reports detailing the general feeling of fear in which most Israelis have to live.

But we also get the coverage of the killed Palestinians, their destroyed homes and their suffering under the occupation.

I think we get the facts for both sides. But it's hard, for instance, to make the fact that before the US attack on Iraq every Israeli got a gas-mask while the Palestinians got nothing, look good for the Israeli administration. Is that anti-Israel or is that just the unfavorable facts?

_____________________

"MURDERERS! Remember Orca!!! Free Willy!!!" Yun-kyung bellowed. "The shark in Jaws was just misunderstood!" - Castaway
I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[GiftofAmber]

Quote:

---

I can understand and respect such an opinion if you were also bothered before because of the strong pro-Israel stance of the media. But if you are only now becoming bothered because the bias is turning into the opposite direction which you don't happen to like, then it's pretty hypocritical.

---

Ok, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my statement. Happens occasionally. I was very happy when the media was pro-Israel because to be perfectly honest, as a result of my upbringing, I feel very close to Israel just like the USA. That is a personal opinion that reaches into the depths of my soul.



Thus, I am quite bothered by the change.



Unbiased media coverage would have been adequate, and certainly not the desired approach, but would have been less bothersome.



I don't consider that hypocritical at all.

[maudmac]

A biased media does us all harm. And the American media has been misleading us, presenting Israel as blameless victims in all this, when Israel has done things like bulldoze homes knowing full well there were innocent people in there. They have driven bulldozers knowingly, willingly, over live people who were only begging them to please stop. I didn't see that on my news in the States. I do, however, see it on my news when a Palestinian kills people.



Why the resistance to telling the truth? However it makes a nation look, if it's a truthful, fair, account of events, what's the problem?



All nations make mistakes. And I would never want the media to over-report matters involving either side of a dispute; I don't want to see a bias in favor of the Palestinians any more than I want to see a pro-Israel bias.



I just want the truth.

---

Pussy - strong enough for a man, but made for a woman  -- Margaret Cho

[Gatito Grande]

I appreciate your honesty, GofA, when you say

Quote:

---

I was very happy when the media was pro-Israel because to be perfectly honest, as a result of my upbringing, I feel very close to Israel just like the USA. That is a personal opinion that reaches into the depths of my soul.

---

But can't you see that *every people* feels that "depths of their soul" thing? The "me and my kind/screw everybody else" attitude (which is the essence of the nation-state system, as well as many other in group/out-group dualities) is leading to untold misery for billions of people (nevermind the poor non-human creatures caught in the destruction and pollution of war-machines).



Did you ever see the movie Gandhi? I'm thinking of the scene where a fasting-unto-death Gandhi is speaking to a Hindu man, beyond-distraught w/ guilt over killing a Muslim child. Gandhi says to the man "Find a child whose parents have been killed, and raise him. But you, a Hindu, must *raise the child as a faithful Muslim*."



[Begging your pardon, GG is getting weepy just writing the above, a mixture of and ]



That's what I say to you, GofA: take your "closeness to Israel just like the USA" and put yourself in the place of suffering Palestinians. Not in spite of your love for Israel, but because of it. And I'll do the same, even w/ Israeli settlers: no one deserves being blown up, no matter their politics or even their (in come cases) bigotry.



A Hindu child, a Muslim child, a Jewish child, a Christian child, a Sikh child . . . : this is who we're fighting for, but it's a fight that can *only* be won through love.



GG Alternatives to the nation-state system? Well, we can *start* by having the world's "hyper-power" (the U.S. of A.) NOT say "F*ck you" to the UN on a regular basis! Out

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 6/1/03 9:35:58 pm

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

Does Israel have a right to an independant state? YES!!!



Does Palestine have a right to an independant state? YES!!!



Can the co-exist? They rather have to but I think it will take a long time.



Are Palestinians or Israelis the victims/victimisers? YES to both on both counts. There are no good guys or bad guys here. They are both guilty of perpetrating horrendous acts of terrorism on each other and of being victims of such terrorism.



The real problem here has been the unwillingness of the outside world to step in for fear of being looked upon as anti-semitic. Yes, what happened to the Jews in WW2 was deplorable and unforgivable, but it should not be used as a reason for NOT taking action against them when they are in violation of Human Rights.



It's time for the world to turn round to Israel and say "Enough is Enough!!!"



Equally this needs to be said to the Palestinians.



They both have the right to their own country and do NOT have the right to stop the other from attaining this.

[themagicpixie]

I was taught in school that Israel was created in 1948. It took me a long time to realise it wasn't just some vacant land no-one wanted... the Jews suffered horribly in World War II, and I entirely understand why they would want their own state, but at the time, everyone should have thought through the consequences of bringing Israel into existence. What we are seeing happening today is the legacy of WWII and how we tried to make things better, and couldn't...



I agree that if the state of Israel or those in charge of it are responsible for atrocities they should be sanctioned or held accountable in the same way the Palestinians are. Both have been at fault before now.



One thing I would say is that around 500,000 Romani or "Gypsy" people died in the Holocaust too and were systematically targeted by the Nazi regime (though not to the same level and with the same deranged desire for extermination as the Jews), but they do not have their own state, and still suffer prejudice. This is not an argument that Israel should not exist! - simply that it was not only Jews who perished in the Holocaust (though they were the largest group) and some groups, most notably the Romani, have not been able to improve their lives and situations in the way many Jewish people have e.g. by being a part of their own nation.



We should not forget the suffering of anyone under the Nazi regime, but we should not forget that it was not just Jewish people the Nazis persecuted. We also should see that there have been many other incidences of racism, persecution, genocide etc. in the world, some in very recent history and some happening right now. If we say the Jewish Holocaust was unique, and that Israel must exist because the Nazis' "Final Solution" for Jews was so particularly evil in an unprecedented and unimaginable way, then it is a very sad truth that we are blinding ourselves to the evils that have happened and continue to happen all over the world - including in Israel.



We should not allow the fact Jews suffered under Hitler to blind us to things going wrong in Israel in 2003. I am not Jewish, although some of my ancestors were, and I fully recognise that were I Jewish I would not doubt feel that Israel had an absolute right to exist, but I cannot help thinking that things were handled in the wrong way. I guess I don't know how else it could have gone, though...

[darkmagicwillow]

In an expected 3:2 Republican/Democrat divided vote, the FCC, led by chairman Michael Powell, removed many of the limits which prevented media companies from controlling multiple sources in the same market. Here are excerpts from Foxnews.com's article:

The new rules could lead to the television networks gobbling up more local stations while other changes will allow companies to own two stations in more markets, and newspapers to buy television stations that serve the same markets.

Meanwhile, life continues as usual in occupied Iraq, with the occupying forces finding no weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi protests about the occupation growing more strident. For those who don't think oil matters in American politics and foreign policy, here's a quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt that I discovered:

The trouble with this country is that you can't win an election without the oil bloc, and you can't govern with it.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 6/2/03 10:29:54 am