Yet you still try to parse out her short exchange to make your point.
You are mistaken on who started the wars. Except the Yom Kippur War in 1973 they were started by Israel. Maybe the Israeli’s needed to start them, but with the exception of the Yom Kippur war, Israel started each one. Israel started these wars. The Six Day war in was Israel’s response to heightened rhetoric and economic measures. Both sides mobilized and Israel shot first. The Suez War was a war of conquest and aggression started by Israel, Britain and France in order to seize the Suez Canal.
The Israelis have stolen land from the Palestinians since the 1940s. These people and their homes are not toothpaste. Their choice is to leave or be malnourished in the Gaza Ghetto. Many of them do want to co-exist peacefully with Israel. Some of them want to and do fight back.
You seem to argue that after the Six Day war that Israel owns the land by right of conquest. A war Israel started. They do not. Right of conquest is not recognized internationally as an acceptable way to gain land. Israel holds the land granted by the UN legally. It occupies the rest. It has made clear through settlements that it intends to keep that land in perpetuity. It has moved out the native residents, ethnically cleansing these areas.
In short, your acceptance of the Israeli propaganda that its wars were purely defensive and started by the other side is just that. Go to Universities in disinterested countries all over the world and you will find universally that Israel was only attacked by other countries first during the Yom Kippur war. Look at the Suez war in the early 50s and you will see that Israel, France and Britain engaged in a full out Napoleonic style attempt to steal the Sinai and the Canal for no better reason than that they wanted it.
No. I’m asking you how you parse her comments. Who do you think she was talking about?
Well, the first war was started by the Arabs. The Six day war was in response to a blockade, so we can argue all day about who “started” it.
Well, the Israelis have shown themselves more than willing to trade back land for peace. Both sides have plenty of blame to spread around, but the Palestinians have to figure out if they want to have their own state, with borders yet to be negotiated, and live in peace with Israel or be an oppressed people forever.
The Palestinians in the West Bank seem to pretty much get this, and they are improving their lot. The Gazans do not seem to get this, and their lot is deteriorating.
I believe what he said was “I’ve been an NRA member since (whenever).” And if I remember the whole controversy correctly, he was not an NRA member, although he had won some kind of NRA sponsored marksmanship contest as a child. He did not say he was interviewing anyone on behalf of an NRA publication. That would have been ridiculous since Heston was president of the NRA at the time.
At the same time I think it has to be acknowledged that deception is part of undercover reporting. That’s the whole point, in fact: if Heston thinks Moore is a sympathetic audience, he might say something that he would not tell a reporter - like suggesting that America has more crime than Europe because there are more nonwhite people here. The problem with the Heston interview, from what I remember of it, is that the basis for Moore’s questions was itself incorrect. (I think he made it sound like an NRA rally was immediately after the Columbine shootings when it was actually later. I haven’t seen the movie since it came out.) The ACORN comparison is even sillier. The “pimp” redubbed all the audio in his video recordings and edited things in such a way that it is not clear the ACORN workers are answering the questions he says he asked. So from a journalistic standpoint, none of what he recorded is reliable. The fact that he said he was a pimp when he wasn’t, or that Moore said he was an NRA member when he wasn’t (even if he thought he was) is not the issue.
And all of this makes for a proposterous comparison with the Helen Thomas interview. The guy in the video does not lie, misrepresent himself, or conceal his intentions. He runs into her in pubilc and says upfront “Any comments on Israel? We’re asking everybody today… any comments on Israel?”
And so you’ve found another loaded word to abuse. I did not parse her words. I understood them, and I showed - using a lot more context than you have - that when she said “Israel” should get out of Palestine and that “they” should go home, she was definitely talking about Jews.
Which would be a legitimate objection except that she made it clear multiple times that that’s who she was talking about. She indicated she was talking about Jews when she talked about going back to Poland and Germany, and when the interviewer asked if she meant Jews, she confirmed it by adding they could also go to the U.S. She did not dispute his characterization of her statement, which kills your claim that he put words in her mouth.
She never says Israelis. From this we can conclude you’re as untrustworthy and turpitudinous as me. I don’t trust your psychic powers. She says Israel should get out of Palestine, and does not mention Israelis. When the interviewer asks if she is talking about Jews, she doesn’t say “no, I mean all Israelis.” She agrees and mentions somewhere else they should go back to.
Was it a trade embargo, or was it a blockade? Or was it denying usage of territorial waters? You might want to look that up. A blockade is what is going on in Gaza. Refusal to use one waterway that does not block the entire country is not a blockade. Israel started the shooting in the Six Day war. First you are incorrect in who starts the wars in general. You apparently concede that the Suez war was a land grab by the Brits, France and Israel. So the Egyptians are worried that they might be attacked again. When tensions rise, the Egyptians do not shoot, they declare the waters next to their country not passable by the past belligerent, thereby leaving the entire Mediterranean coast of Israel passable. Then you call an embargo a blockade, and then you say “we can argue all day about who started it.” Yes we can, and the Israelis surprised their enemies in their home air bases with their planes on the ground by firing first. Which they certainly felt necessary.
Having been raised in a tradition that bought all the propaganda that you are putting forth here, I once would have agreed with you. But having actually been shown the other side of the matter, it is really apparent to me that Israel was prepared to seize a lot of land in the Six Day war, fired the first shots and did seize the land. While neither side is without some responsibility in starting the Six Day war (and some foreign troublemakers too boot), Israel started it and bears by far the most responsibility for it. And they won it. But that does not justify the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Nor does it mitigate it.
Wait - are you supporting certain groups having some sort of ancestral claims, or opposing this?
You seem to support such claims in some cases (Mexicans vs. Texans; Palestinians vs. Israelis) but not others.
I’m confused.
To my mind, at least, none of 'em hold any water. The reason Israel is “justified” is not some events two millenia ago, but that it exists right now. Same as every other country in the world.
No-one who objectively studies the history of the Six Day War could possibly come to the reasoned conclusion that it was all really Israel’s doing, and part of its cunning plan. What, like the Israelis somehow persuaded the Soviets to lie to Nassar about troop build-ups on the part of Israel, to make Nassar close the straights to Israeli shipping, to make Nassar order the UN out of the Sinai?
Yes, Israel fired the first shot. We can argue all day over whether or not they were justified in their pre-emptive strike. It’s not objectively clear that they were unjustified.
No. You’ll notice that in my first post on the subject I didn’t say anything about who started any of the wars. I just said “wars were fought”. You jumped to the conclusion that I was saying the Israelis did not start any of the wars. At any rate, I think it’s clear that the Arabs did start fighting first in the aftermath of the UN partition vote. The Yom Kipur War was started by the Arabs. The 6 Day War was initiated by the Israelis.
But so fucking what? The Arab states had been openly hostile towards Israel from day 1. Wars were fought. I don’t really even care who started them. At this point, it doesn’t matter. We have the state of Israel, which is not going away. We can have a state of Palestine if the Palestinians recognize they have to negotiate the borders and live in peace with Israel. It’s unclear to me they accept that.
I agree with you in most part. All the participants were responsible, and you know, as most don’t, that the Soviets misinformed Nassar. What I objected to was John Mace’s assertion, which is fairly standard by the pro-Israel side, that the Arabs started a war against Israel. They didn’t. Circumstances were moving towards war, but since the Israeli’s Pearl Harbored the Egyptian Air Force, it is really hard to claim that the Egyptians started the war. Yet John Mace does it with a straight face. Israel felt its existence was threatened and needed to strike first, and did. But that doesn’t mean that half a century later we have to repeat a party line piece of propaganda that Israel was attacked. It absolutely wasn’t. But people who don’t give a damn about Palestinians will say that the Arabs started that war. They did not. At best they were partially responsible by spewing their own rhetoric that made it more likely and closing down a waterway that made it more likely.
Why the Soviets misinformed Nassar I don’t know, but they sure get their share of blame for doing so.
Probably because they did. Egypt blockaded the port of Eilat, an act of war. Jordan and Syria also attacked Israel before Israel attacked either one of them.
Not your first post, but here is why you seem to be assigning fault by who is starting wars:
And let’s not forget the Suez grab was started by the Israelis. The various neighbors of Israel believe that Israel wants to take their land and expel them because that is what the did starting with the partition and continuing with the Suez war.
And if the UN were to partition the California and move us out of our homes by decree and force for V Visitors, District 9 residents or some other mostly newcomers, you would recommend that Californians not be hostile? To accept it? The people in Arizona do not seem to be taking immigration well even when the people will work for damn near free.
While it is unclear to you that the Palestinians will negotiate and accept any borders within Israel, it is clear to the international community that it is Israel which is driving out and further oppressing the Palestinians from that which is rightfully theirs, including Gaza and the West Bank and that Israel will never accept Palestinians having their own country in the West Bank and Gaza. All Israel would have to do to indicate they want to move in that direction would be to stop making new settlements in the West Bank. But despite worldwide condemnation, they continue to make new settlements in the land of the Palestinians. If you listen to the statements of the Likud people in charge of the government, they pretty clearly want all of the land for Israel and always have. Here is a graphic depiction of what is going on: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/media/landloss.gif
The Likudists want it all and will never stop ethnically cleansing the Palestinians until it stops. There will always be excuses that the other side started it or is doing another wrong. I resent paying for it, and I resent the treatment of the Palestinians in these prison like enclaves.
What I object to is your misrepresenting what I posted. I just said “wars were fought”. And I put it that way on purpose because, at this point in time, it doesn’t matter who started what. It’s done. The Arabs lost. They can choose to fight another war if they want, or they can choose to work out peace.
I know this thread is yonks long and all, but I got as far as this and my irony meter exploded. Ever heard of a group called Palestinians?
Hi, my name is eleanorigby and I’m against the current Israeli policy, the past Israeli policy and the future Israeli policy if it continues to cry victim while marginalizing a community that has lived on that soil for centuries.
And you call others racist? I sincerely hope that you are as anti-the current nonsensical treatment of Palestinians or you are also (by your own definition!) a racist. Or does that only matter when your the “oppressed” party? :dubious:
I think Helen Thomas spoke without thinking through her comments. I also think old age played a role and the bait and switch of the “reporter”. I also think she was wrong to voice that opinion and can see how it could be misconstrued (if that is what has happened–I can’t see into her heart or mind and don’t know if she is revealing a nasty character trait or if it was a simple mistake. Given her integrity in the past, I plump for mistake. YMMV).
And suppose Thomas meant what she said. That is indeed insensitive and probably offensive. But if Thomas is a “a Jew-hating Lefty bitch” who advocates “ethnic clean[s]ing,” I wonder what words should be used to describe the American mainstream media, which has aided and abetted Israel in its decades-long genocide against the Palestinians? What level of oprobium would be sufficient?
The Israeli right is fairly upfront about its desire to annihilate the Palestinians. The Israeli “liberals” have tacitly endorsed the same; they have gone from the morally schizophrenic “crying and shooting,” to starving millions, and now to murdering those who attempt to deliver aid to the dispossessed. And the American media, in its role of shaping the popular opinion of Israel’s most significant benefactor, has been complicit in these crimes against humanity. Disgusting, indeed.
My comment about rednecks getting out of Texas was a joke. I also don’t think Jews should leave Israel, but the claims of the Palestinians are not exactly ancient.
At this point I agree. Israel is entrenched, it’s established, it isn’t going anywhere and it’s an ally. I don’t want Israel to go away, I just want it to treat the Palestinians better (a whole different debate, I know, but we’ll never resolve that here). I don’t know how many times I can say it. I don’t agree with what Helen Thomas said. I’m only contesting the assertion that it necessarily makes her a bigot or an antisemite.
Maybe it would be helpful to know that she is of Arab descent (Lebanese, I believe), and that she has personal family history in pre-1948 Palestine. She sees the creation of Israel as a presumptuous and callous act by arrogant European countries (plus the US). Agree or disagree with that, the sentoment is not grounded in racial, religious or ethnic bigotry. It’s defensive hostility towards what she perceives as an invasion and occupation. I really don’t think it would have mattered what color, race or religion the perceived “invaders” were.
