Your claim about how anybody who doesn’t support the “100% pro-Israel” position will quite probably be called an anti-Semite seems to contradict your claim of strict neutrality. Nor is the IOC’s job to try to referee international political arguments (to say nothing of the idea that the state of Israel could get much traction out of a 40 year old story).
The only really relevant fact is that there were Olympic athletes who were butchered simply because they came from a certain country, and the IOC has never given them a proper moment of silence. A tangent from that is that, ironically, were it any other nation on the planet there would be no debate at all, but people opposed to the moment of silence, only because it’s Israeli athletes at issue, are claiming that they’re doing so so as to not allow politics to intrude.
Because murdered Olympians is part of the Israeli propaganda ploy. You’re right. They probably kidnapped, tortured and murdered the Olympians themselves just to look good. Jews already control the media and most high level ranks of government in the Western world. It only makes sense.
For all the times Israel has suffered terrorist attacks, it hasn’t asked the world to hold moments of silence for them. These were OLYMPIANS at THE OLYMPICS whose only crime was being Israeli. So much for good sportsmanship and camaraderie.
Obviously I also meant the “100% pro-Palestine” position. And this discussion demonstrates how important it is to dot every i and cross every t when the subject is the Middle East or risk being accused of taking side.
As everything relating to the Middle East is heavily politized anything the IOC does will be seen as being in favor of one side or the other. They simply can’t win this one no matter what they do.
I have no idea how they evaluate it. My guess is that they simply want to stay out of it. As I wrote earlier: Either way they will be seen as taking side.
No… that’s not only not obvious, it’s nonsensical.
Furthermore, as you ducked a very simple request to even define what a “100% pro X position” even is, and as you immediately jumped right into using the ‘you can’t criticize Israel at all without someone probably calling you an anti-Semite’ tactic, your protestations about how you have to “dot every i and cross every t” ring somewhat hollow. But fair enough, all that means is that you really haven’t advanced any argument at all beyond the fact that we must make a political judgement about dead athletes so that politics won’t intrude on the matter of dead athletes.
That is not, I hope you realize, a particularly robustly cogent position.
Hopefully you also realize that “we will not memorialize the slain athletes, solely because they were Israelis” is not, in fact, a way to stay out of any conflict. Moreover, bending to the wishes of people who would protest because slain Olympic athletes were memorialized are not exactly the type of folks one wants to cater to, eh?
But they can’t stay out of it, as you yourself seem to see. As you said, either way they are taking a side. They have chosen the side of cowardice and catering to bigots. To hell with them.
You made an extremely strong comment about the “pro-Israel 100% line” but you can’t explain what either the “pro-Israel 100% line” or the “pro-Palestinian 100% line” is?
That’s really weird.
Let me rephrase then.
What did you mean by the “pro-Israel 100% line”?
Huh?
Again, what the fuck are you talking about. The Israelis were quite often “the aggressors back then”.
Please elaborate on what you meant with this post because I don’t understand it.
So what you’re saying is that you wouldn’t object to a moment of silence for “victims” who were Portuguese, Canadian, or Indonesian, but do object to a moment of silence for Israelis?
Why is that?
Why do you find the deaths of Israelis less worthy of mourning than the deaths of Canadians, Portugese, and Indonesians?
I assume you’re familiar with what happened to the East Timorese and how it was vastly, vastly worse than even the grossest of exaggerations as to what happened to the Palestinians.
I certainly hope you wouldn’t have mentioned the Indonesians without knowing about East Timor.
For that matter, I have no problem saying that the people of Angola and Mozambique were treated vastly worse by the Portugese than the Israelis ever treated the Palestinians.
Again, please explain because I’d like to think you didn’t just pick the Portugese at random.
That’s a rather strong pronouncement. I’ve always found it interesting how many people like to think that they’re saying something profound or wise when they say both sides are crazy or to use your variation that they “care for neither side.”
Presumably to make such a strong statement you have a deep understanding and knowledge of the region and peoples involved.
Perhaps, without looking them up on the internet you can give your opinion or the differences and the value of the men known as “the red Prince” and “the father of storm clouds”?
They are both fairly well known within the region and I can say that most people familiar with the region and the history, particularly those knowledgeable enough to so cavalierly and contemptuously dismiss the people involved could tell me about them.
I’ll give you a four hints.
They were both involved with “the Munich massacre”, one is dead, one is quite powerful and prominent, and “storm clouds” is a name(though not a common one) for males in Arabic.
By the “100% line” I refer to the crowd who back either side 100% no matter what.
And yes, the Israelis have been ‘aggressors’ but never at the Olympics which I believe we were talking about.
Regarding the Portuguese el al I was referring to the fact that they are not part of a long standing conflict where everything is seen in that context.
I don’t think I have said anything profound (please stop thinking you know what I think) but yes, I do think I know a little about the conflict (no, I did NOT write that I think I know everything about it). And you are not in any position to give my writing assignments.
You come across as being very aggressive. Try to tone that down a bit if you want replies from me.
Alright. a 100% position is to me someone who sides with one part in the conflict no matter what the subject or the background. My sincere apologies for not writing that earlier. I hope you can forgive me.
As to the "you can’t criticize Israel without being called anti-semite” this of course also goes the other way. Try taking a stand which can be seen as pro-Istrael, and there is a great risk of being accused of hating the Palestineans. As I wrote earlier, when discussing this conflict it is important to dot every i and cross every t in order to avoid being seen as ‘pro’ one side or the other.
I think you are missing the point here. Taking the compassionate side also sends a strong message. Take the downing of Iran Air 655 in the 80s for example. The Samuel Roberts shot down a civilian airliner and killed almost 300 passengers. No apology was ever made because that would be seen as a victory for the Iranians. Bush senior even said "I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don’t care what the facts are” or something along those lines. Nothing was done that could be seen as giving the other side a victory victims be damned. I suspect the IOC wants to avoid a similar situation where they will be accused of either side of helpting the other side.
No. And I have travelled in Israel, Egypt and Lebanon. But it is also my impression that the opinion of the average Palestinian means very little to the politicians.
Such a crowd does not exist and it does honest discussion a disservice to trade in fictional badguy groups.
Yes, that they won’t cave to (or stand in solidarity with) bigots, that Olympic athletes slain simply for their nationality deserve to be memorialized, and that they won’t let playing politics get in the way of doing what’s right.
Comments about mistaken military action against an Iranian passenger jet as not only a non sequitor but, again, make it clear that you’re married to an extraneous political narrative where there certainly doesn’t have to be one. The issue is about slain Olympic athletes. They can and should be memorialized without reference to greater political schemae.
This analogy doesn’t make sense. No one’s asking the IOC to apologize. They didn’t murder anyone. All people are asking is for a moment of silence to remember a dozen young people who were brutally killed for no reason at all.
If Columbine High school holds a moment of silence on the anniversary of the massacre there, would people claim the school admin was apologizing or taking sides? Of course they wouldn’t, that would be truly asinine.
So when Londoners on the tram get blown up, they’re not on a side.
When Israelis get mudered, they’re on a side just for being Israelis. Even if they were born somewhere else.
Athletes represent their countries, but they are ATHLETES. In this context, they weren’t “Israelis who died because of someone’s fucked up politics”, they were OLYMPIANS.
I’m just wondering if some Jewish Americans are kidnapped or shot tomorrow, like say Ally Raisman, you’d agree with a moment of silence or think it inappropriate because it’s politics. Because the IOC definitely sided with Londoners in that memorial tribute.
Not to be insensitive but at least one Jewish American Olympic athlete has been kidnapped and killed and Bumbleebee seems to feel he didn’t deserve what you’re asking about.
His name was David Berger and he was one of the wieghtlifters murdered in Munich. That’s why he’s buried in the US, not Israel.
So, I think his response is that it would be inappropriate for political reasons.
you are aware to the fact he is an American-born Israeli weightlifter, so yes, he was burn in the u.s but no one considers him as an american… the fact he is buried in u.s is only because, as many young Jews, he made “Alia” without his parents, and after his death they buried him there. lets be clear- if he was an american athlete there would be a minute of silence every Olympic games since 1972 ( summer and winter).
about all those hypothetical situation of victims from the Indonesia\ India\other countries is just talking in the air… and it is easy to say that the treatment from the IOC would be same… I’ll just compare the IOC to another world-wide committee that should have only one concern-the U.N human-rights committee ( human rights),but it makes decisions in an extremely hypocritical way - after some events Israel was criticized as hell, but after much more horrific events in other parts of the world the committee remains silence… so the difference here is that with the u.n it is clear they are bigots, but with the IOC you have nothing to compare to, so people can still say that it would be the same no matter the nationality…