It is always uplifting to take on the role of educator. Likewise to learn at any age, no doubt:
‘Pillagers’ is an archaic word and not preferred.
Property during war/occupation
emphasis added
See, land.
Prescient…
Helpful if you also concede no-one has ever said “controls”.
In fact, I advise you to read the precipitating post of mine. You have badly misstated the argument. The argument addresses what editorial choices occur. Saying nothing about the factors affecting those choices, beyond ‘commercial’ and ‘leant on’.
See above. I do not have an argument as to the mechanism.
They are looters. Easy.
Really any wrath is due to those who promote the euphemism ‘settlers’, almost as if they are, in some tiny sense’ legitimate.
And, of course, even the evasion is cherrypipcked. (And from an uncited WIki, what’s more). Gee, I wonder why someone would choose only part of the quote so as to obfuscate its actual meaning.
Emphasis, context, mine.
Looters come in, take stuff, and leave. Settlers come in, build stuff, and stay. They’re clearly doing the latter. This settlement may or may not conform to the international customs and laws, it may or may not be moral, it may or may not be wise, but it’s clearly settlement. The people in question are building permanent structures with the intent of living on the land. That’s settlement.
What we are discussing is editorial choices. I agree it is a reasonable position that this particular story is not embargoed.
The ABC story differs in its editorial choice. One that is key. It omits: “* … emigrated to Israel to carry out attacks against Palestinians…*” or any words which would likewise show the purpose driving the emigration. The very quote I first identified. ABC edits this statement, slanting the current issue.
Is this the point at which someone uses a clue-by-four to note the fact that by these same… logic, each and every Arab in the Levant is a looter who should be shot on sight, to the last man woman and child? So if this argument is honestly held, Sevastopol has just come out in support of the genocide of the entire Palestinian people.
I guess if Sevastopol honestly believed that Bryan saying that Jordan should help take a more active role in the peace process and compensating Palestinians was a call for genocide, then Sevastopol himself saying that conquering somewhere and moving in means that even one’s descendants can be killed means that he whole heartedly supports exterminating every last Palestinian.
What, no?
Gee… I wonder why the double standard?
I blame the Zoroastrians who control the US media.
And it is looting. It is not either or, as you posit.
If you really prefer, consider them to be “pillagers” in your own mind.
Sunlight, best disinfectant, yadda yadda.
Like I said, even the most far reaching claims confirm that roughly 60% of the settlements are, yep, not on Palestinian land at all.
I suppose that we might also mention the case of Hebron, a fairly sizable Jewish community that was virtually wiped out largely due to Arab riots instigated and organized by the Nazi-aligned Grand Mufti. Since we all know that Sevastopol’s position is not a rationalization, we know that he will immediately and clearly, without evasion or weaseling, endorse the position that the IDF should round up all the Arabs on land that Jews owned and shoot them. And as he’s argued in the past, they can certainly start with pregnant mothers and their children.
Happy to oblige.
So after it’s repeatedly demonstrated to you that stories like that have in fact been readily available in major American news media, that your claims of “embargo” are ludicrous, and that even the particular language in the BBC story that you claimed was missing from American news stories did in fact appear in the abcnews.com account, you now pretend we were talking about something else entirely.
I can see the latter statement must have been painful for you. Apparently it was not enough to warrant a clear admission that the lack of a U.S. news embargo is not only a reasonable position, it is the correct one.
And as I expected, you’ve painted yourself into a corner where the only shred left to cling to is that no one has demonstrated a U.S. media account of the affair that recapitulates word for word the BBC story, and that therefore one must conclude that unseen puppet hands are controlling American news sources to prevent criticism of Israel.
Beyond pathetic.
Jack, try to be honest here.
We all recognize that Zoroastrians are sneaky and clever enough to totally hide their control of the US. Asking for proof just shows how dishonest and dishonorable you are.
Remember Gaugamela!
It’s neither looting nor pillaging, except by some ideosyncratic definition that only you use.
If “leaning on” doesn’t cause “control”, then what harm is it? Your argument, such as it is, is that Israel has an effect that isn’t quite control, and although you have no clear statement on how this effect occurs, it is indeed obvious and significant and, in your earlier words, explains why Americans " cannot see" certain stories.
Seems to me something capable of leaning on something else and having this much influence is indeed controlling it. That you didn’t specifically say “control” is irrelevant. Besides, if “commercial” interests are also in play, than I’d wager that Wal*Mart has a far greater influence than Israel, since they have more advertising revenue to throw around. How much, if any, “commercial” influence does Israel have?
Actually, that he won’t come out and say what his argument means and instead talks about control without saying “control” (and uses that as some sort of defense) and that he merely insinuates this evil shadowy, organized control of a foreign nation but won’t even suggest how such a thing is possible is quite relevant.
Obviously, Sevastopol subscribes to certain historically popular claims about the evil of the Zoroastrians as a people.
It’s not that Israel, the Zoroastrian State itself has vast commercial influence, it’s that, totally innocently and filled with the milk of human kindness, Sevastopol is echoing very old slurs about how Zoroastrians control the media and the economy for their own evil ends, pressing and cruelly dominating the good and noble people of the world and sticking their big hooked noses in where they don’t belong. That this is accomplished with maximum weasel language and insinuation is simply coincidence. In fact, anybody who disagrees does so because they are the ones who hate Zoroastrians. Not that Sevastopol even knows that the looters are Zoroastrians, but anybody who disagrees with him obviously is racist against Zoroastrians.
Just like he justifies the murder of Zoroastrians by calling them looters while going to great lengths to justify the same ‘looting’ when the Macedonians engage in it, to the point of arguing that there is no intent of genocide or ethnic cleansing when some of the Macedonians explicitly claim that the land is theirs because they took it from other owners via force and they will rule the entire territory, in perpetuity, because they consecrated it to the Olympian Pantheon and those damn Zoroastrians had just better get used to not owning property and being ruled by a theocratic Olympian state.
Well, I figure at heart the “media is being controlled/leaned on/influenced” is an excuse people come up with to explain why their views are not universally, or even widely, held. If the American public isn’t on the Palestinian side, I gather, it’s because of a determined censorship effort and not because the American people are unsympathetic to people who send suicide bombers into discos and pizza parlors.
Similarly, those who think the American media is biased left are using that as an excuse to explain why not everybody is eager to restore the social order of the 1950s.
Could be. That was much the same idea behind Walt and Mearsheimer’s claims of an evil Lobby (made up of groups who in actually hold different agendas and often work at cross purposes or even oppose each other). They figured that their subjective opinion was so obviously correct that the only way that everybody didn’t agree with them was that some chicanery was going on.
Of course, while that might sometimes be the most parsimonious explanation, having it compounded by several other… odd claims and beliefs makes a simple lack of critical thinking and absurd subjectivity less and less likely.
This misses the context. A discussion between ** D D** and I on the curious fact that the US polity alone is far more tolerant of Israeli atrocities that anywhere else.
Similarly, you are misconstruing the argument. It has nothing to do with who is doing the heavying. The US media is leant upon, or ‘chilled’ in terms of discussing the merits and demerits of policy re : Israel. This is an uncontroversial statement, is it not?
Secondly, ‘control’ while happily reminiscent of anti-semitic myths that warm many a heart and spleen, is at the extreme end of a spectrum, where the argument places the level of influence towards the other extreme. Do US publications receive their orders in dictatation on an hourly basis regarding the Superbowl coverage? No. Are they experiencing a ‘chillling effect’ where stories inquiring the conduct of Israel’s policy arise. Yes they are.
No, it is yourself that poses land as a special and distinct class of property. Conduct that in every other respect is plain looting becomes something else where the property is immobile. There is no reason in principle to accept any such difference exists.
Mobile property of land; it is all looting.