And it continues. :rolleyes:
Well, I am sorry you feel that way but it still doesnt change established fact that Israel uses much the same tactics as Palestinean terrorists do short of suicide bombers in public places.
Terrorists are persons or groups of persons that target civilian and non-involved military units to induce a political change.
Israel target the suspected terrorists family and neighborhood.
There is a common protocol among Israeli occupational forces that if they challenge anyone and he runs, shooting him would be justifiable. This was shown on MTV as if everyone would understand the logic. Not being in that situation, I dont …not fully.
It takes a palestinean 2 hours to cross a border that an Israeli would take 20 minutes to get across.
You have refugee camps patrolled by tanks.
and lastly all your actions are directed at having Arafat change his way and reform his governement.
This is not one sided tho. I still cant figure out what the strategic advantage is to blowing up your comrades in a bus full of israeli civilians other than getting you friends and family killed for the media to see.
What you related is not a fact, XS. Get back to me after you realize what a fact is and what truth is.
Altho I mentioned earlier that I dont fully understand Israeli mindset, that doesnt mean I dont agree with some if not most of their tactics. Both nations live in fear of each other. One is prospering the other isnt. A sense of imbalance exists between them and Israel would rather it keeps on prospering. Palestine likes to prosper as well but doesnt have America to support it. All well and good but what about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Syria? These nations can chip in and help the palestinean economy but all they do is lend moral support and arms. The underlying objective of paletinean extremists and terrorists is nothing less than the total annihialation and destruction of the nation of Israel. They dont want cooperation or harmony. They want the jews outta there. Thats like Saddam’s sons telling Bush to resign. Kinda futile and self destructive.
It is amusing to see that not only is the Israeli government’s actions against the Palistinians “their fault”, but the Palistinian terrorist’s actions against Israel is “Israel’s fault”, too.
Actually, the reverse is much more likely the case. There is no way that suicide bombing actually supports the legitimate asperations of the Palistinian people for a state of their own. Much more likely, it “goads” the Israelis into increasingly harsh reprisals - which, not coincidentally, increase support for the terrorists. Outsiders who unilaterally blame Israel for everything of course increase the legitimacy of these terror tactics.
The net effect of these reprisals is of course increased misery for Palistinians - which can then be portrayed as “crimes against humanity”, blamed on Israel, and used to justify further terrorism (with or without ritual denunciations of the killing of random civilians).
Those who are really interested in the welfare of Palistinians would demand that they stop this vicious cycle. If they did, peace would be made easy - and the slum-like conditions of the Palistinians eased by investment and economic growth.
But unfortunately that is unlikely to happen, because the basis of the suicide bombing campaign is not to stuggle for Palistinian statehood - but to struggle to rally the Arab world for the destruction of Israeli statehood. If you don’t believe me, read this - concerning the debate within Palistine over the use of these tactics:
http://memri.info/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=IA10102
Or this article, defining what motivates a bomber:
http://memri.info/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP37302
I found these parts particularly instructive:
“There are no Israeli civilians. They are all plunderers. History teaches this… I am completely convinced that the psychological effect [of the attacks] on the Israeli plunderer is [the realization] that his existence is temporary… They have become completely convinced that their existence in this region is temporary… Remove the Apache [helicopter] from the equation, leave them one-on-one with the Palestinian people with the only weapon [for both sides] being dynamite. Then you will see all the Israelis leave, because among them there is not even one man willing to don a belt of dynamite…”
“On the strategic level, there must be a pan-Arab plan in order to reach our goal. The goal of all of us is to liberate Palestine from the Israeli aggressors. To use words that some people no longer like to use today: ‘We will throw Israel into the sea.’ This phrase, by the way, is the truth. Either they will throw us into the sea, or we will throw them into the sea. There is no middle ground. Coexistence is total nonsense…”
“The real means of dealing with Israel directly is those who blow themselves up. According to what I see in the battle arena, there is no [other means] except for the pure, noble Palestinian bodies. This is the only Arab weapon there is, and anyone who says otherwise is a conspirator. I regret having to use these terms, but Arab politicians and journalists who condemn this fedaai movement are trying to impose such ideas on us to appease the West… The Palestinian body is the only means [of warfare] in this battle.”[2]
Until this attitude is changed, there can be no peace. What sort of compromise can there be with this type of attitude?
Monty
Yes, indeed, it continues. Soon as somebody turns up to deny any possible one-sidedness, somebody pops up to demonstrate that the ‘strawman’ is hardly made of straw.
Why is it that the only logical fallacies most people seem to have heard of are strawman and ad hominem (which they usually define incorrectly)?
Malthus, do you think that MEMRI has a partcularly objective view, given that it was founded by an Israeli intelligence officer and roughly half it’s staff are former members of the Israeli intelligence service.
I still maintain your use racist language to describe “motivation”, and your use of “nazi” to describe what you think people who argue against you are thinking about the Israeli government, is utter bull. Those are your straw men.
I should of added if you are looking for an objective study of the motivation of suicide bombers a science journal just published one (I have a copy of the issue somewhere, can’t rember the name tho’)
If you’ve never heard Israel described as ‘Nazi’, you’ve obviously not been around much!
Check out Hamas propaganda (it’s even in their Charter), for example.
It’s a fairly regular slogan.
As far as I know, they simply translate and publish statements made for the press in various middle-east countries.
If they were found to have forged any documents, their credibility would vanish overnight. However, they are always very careful to document and footnote everything, so no doubt it can be checked for veracity.
So I don’t see what their identity has to do with anything, considering that they only act as translators - they didn’t write this stuff themselves (I assume). Are you saying that the papers I quoted are not authentic? If so, do me a service and back it up - I will never trust them again. If not, what does it matter if they are totally biased and prejudiced (if that is the allegation)?
Either these views were published as stated, or they were not.
I agree that they are being goaded, I just don’t think it is Israel doing it. There are factions within Israel that want Israel to extend to the Jordan River, and there are factions within Palestine that want Palestine to extend to the sea…they will always be there. They haven’t always been blowing each other up though, and “martyrdom” has not always been so popular. So I fault the radical pan-Islamic sociopolitical movement. The same one that is responsible for bombings in other spots around the globe and is so willing to cite the Palestinian plight as its cause when it suits them.
At the same time I do recognize the desperation of the people and how it can lead to situations like this. :::shrugs::: It’s hard to say where the middle ground begins and ends in this.
I’m don’t think the accuracy of the translations have been questioned (though there probably has been some ‘spinning’), it’s that they only choose to publish extreme and unrepresentative pieces.
Quite frankly they don’t have much credibilty because of their partizan and propagandist nature (which is now quite well known after a piece in the Guardian was published by about them).
I am not sure what the meaning of an “objective study” of suicide bombing is. The article I linked to is decidedly subjective, in that it gives an explaination for the phenominon which is evidently the subjective meaning for some in the Arab world.
I consider that it is this “subjective” meaning which is important, as it is the one which actually motivates people and gives public meaning to the act.
Or are you referring to you doubts about the objectivity of MEMRI? If so, please provide some evidence that the commentary found there was forged.
Are you referring to this?
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/The_Guardians_Selective_Memri.asp
"Most surprising of all is that while Whitaker spends 1,700 words attacking Memri as a “mysterious organization” and its “air of secrecy,” he has forgotten to tell Guardian readers of his own secrets. For in addition to his work as Middle East editor of The Guardian, Whitaker also runs the anti-Israel, website Arab Gateway
(http://www.al-bab.com).
Arab Gateway lists viciously anti-Israel “associate sites,” such as that of the spuriously-named “Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding” (http://www.caabu.org).
Whitaker’s site has pages about non-Arab minorities in the Middle East, such as Berbers and Kurds – but no page on Jews. The site’s section on “maps” lists a “country map of Palestine” (we didn’t know Palestine was a country), but upon clicking the link it takes you to a file at the Univ. of Texas archives with a slightly different name: “israel_map.jpg”.
See a beaming photo of Whitaker on the “about” page of Arab Gateway at
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/about.htm
Sound to us like a conflict of interest."
Sounds to me like a typical partisan shit-fight.
Unless someone can convince me that the articles are forgeries or otherwise fakes (and the Guardian article itself says they are authentic), why should I care what motivates their publication - any more than I should care that the Guardian hires a guy who is so clearly biased himself?
That line of attack is pure smear and bullshit - on both sides. So the best thing to do is ignore it.
So, I ask again - is there any legitimate reason for not believing what I read on that site?
Yes, but Malthus, the Guardian is a repected national daily newspaper, Honestreporting on the other hand has the stated aim of winning the media war for Israel and is extremely partizan. I had a brief look at the site it called antisemitic I can’t find anything there to justify that, especially as most of it’s articles are taken from other sources.
As I stated before MEMRI is not much use for getting a realistic view of the Arab media.
Let’s work through the logic of this, shall we?
-
MEMRI can’t be trusted because it employs Israelis. Therefore it is biased and anything published there can be ignored. This was uncovered by an article in the Guardian. With me so far?
-
The Guardian can’t be trusted because it employs fellows like Whittaker. Whittaker is clearly biased, and so anything he says can be ignored, applying exactly the same logic as above. This was uncovered by Honestreporting. Agree?
-
Honestreporting can’t be trusted … etc. etc.
This type of “logic” is just a cascade of smears. Not one of these positions says anything about the content of the information in question. It just casts doubt on the motives for providing said information. Whether the Guardian is “well respected” or not is a matter of opinion - it employed this fellow and its editorial staff approved his article, which as far as I can see was a textbook example of a smear, so it cannot be said to have acted in a reputable manner in this particular case.
Now, you claim that MEMRI is useless, although you have admitted its translations are not biased (indeed, so did the Guardian). Why is that, I wonder?
Is it because MEMRI only publishes articles that make Arabs look bad? But that is demonstratably false - look here:
Is it because the articles focus on certain themes like “antisemitism” and “Jihad”? So what? Those are the articles of interest.
I personally think that it is because the articles, untailored for Western consumption, show sides of the conflict that you and others find uncomfortable. But if it is a true, existing opinion, maybe this discomfort is a good thing.
You just have to look at it’s contents, for example the only cartoons it contains are antisemtic ones. It is also a Hasbara site too. All I’m saying is that it is hardly objective.
Malthus I have no problem with it highlighting the bad things in the Arab world, because I am well aware of them and they need to be tackled. What I do take issue with is the fact they are not what they say they are and are doing because of ulterior motives.
I have looked at the contents, which are organized by themes. I linked to the section on “reform and progress in the Arab World”, but that doesn’t seem to have changed your mind …
As for the cartoons, perhaps you missed the introduction:
“These cartoons are part of MEMRI’s Arab Antisemitism Documentation Project which documents Arabic newspaper reports, editorials, and other media sources which are primarily based upon antisemitic themes.”
And you are surprised that they are all antisemitic? That is the category of cartoons collected in that site! Or maybe you think that there is no point in collecting such cartoons? If so, why? I myself think that they provide a valuable insight into this aspect of Middle Eastern Culture, and think a similar site collecting cartoons of how Arabs are viewed in Israel would also be valuable - or how either are viewed in the West. But such is not the mandate of this particular site.