18 posts tagged “middle east”
.
A 3-minute slideshow of ordinary arabs over a soundtrack of media branding them as terrorists.
So the question is: Is criticism of Israel Anti - Semitic?
In my opinion: NO!
The real question should be: "Why shouldn't they be criticised?"
They have an atrocious human rights record; they are an illegal occupier and oppressor. They see themselves as the chosen people and as they see it, are above international law. They use undue military force against Palestinian civilians when Israelis continually invade and occupy clearly stated Palestinian borders. They also repeatedly and illegally take land away from Palestinians. Then they have the audacity to cry innocent to the world when a Palestinian fights back.
Sorry Israel it is time that you stopped playing the anti-Semitic card and face up to your own actions. It is time to stop using the 20th Century Holocaust perpetrated on the Jewish people as a guilt trip on the world. What happened to the Jewish people in Europe and the Soviet Union was an appalling crime against the Jewish people, and it should never have occurred. But there is evidence that Zionists did not do much to help their fellow Jewish brothers and sisters and if I maybe so bold, most likely saw it as a plus, as the Zionist movement has used the Holocaust as a gag to stop world out cry in protests against the genocide (UN definition) that Israel has perpetrated on the Palestinian people. The Zionists have used the Holocaust as a lever to get the State of Israel to be one of the richest countries and one of the most powerful military forces on this planet. They have used the guilt to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest lobbyers of the US Government.
In my opinion criticising Israel is a just thing to do, and if it requires a name with “anti” attached to it, then anti – Zionism would be a much better phrase. However I don’t even think that the world “anti” needs to be applied, just being labelled as a humanitarian would do the job nicely.
Now before I get the label anti-Semitic attached to me, I am not anti-Jewish and I stand side by side with all of the peace loving Jewish people scattered throughout the world including those Jewish people inside Israel itself, who oppose the actions of the State of Israel. So if I am anti-Semitic then there are a lot of Jewish people who are anti-Semitic as well – which doesn’t make that much sense really, unless of course there is an issue with the State of Israel and we are really against Zionism.
If you are legitimately protesting about the human rights abuses by the State of Israel and you are labelled as anti-Semitic then be proud, because it means that you are doing the right thing by speaking out. Don’t let that word gag you from saying what needs to be said. You know in your heart if you are speaking the truth, you know if you are anti-Jewish or not. If you are speaking out against the State of Israel because of its continual human rights abuses, then there is no way that you can be seen as being equivalent to a Nazi, which is how the Zionists want to make you feel or have others see you. You are not the villain here, Zionists are.
I don’t condone the Palestinian violent hostilities in retaliation, however I think any one in their situation for as long as they have been, would struggle not to wage some type of violent resistance. What generally makes the US media is the Israeli deaths, which are disproportionably low when compared to the Palestinian deaths. Most Israeli civilian deaths generally occur in retaliation of an attack on a Palestinian area by the well armed Israelis. The Palestinians are then labelled terrorists if they cross into “Israeli land” and kill people in retaliation. But what does the Israeli military get called when it occupies Palestinian land with heavy armed tanks and rocket launchers and fires missiles into Palestinian homes while the Palestinians are sleeping? If one of those soldiers dies as the result of their action and they are in Palestinian land, well isn’t that fair considering they are an invading force? Well apparently not, as the Palestinian who is defending their land and family from the Israeli military, is still labelled a terrorist.
In contrast to the US media, the European and UK media portrays less biased news coverage when it comes to Israel and Palestine. No excuse to those in the US with internet access, the information is easily available. For a start check out this website: www.ifamericansknew.org
Below is an extract from the article which sparked my opinion.
Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic?
One reason that the US government, politicians and people don’t have a clear idea of the situation in Israel/Palestine is that any criticism or complaint about Israel, no matter how well-researched and moderate, is swiftly attacked by lobbies in the US as being anti-Semitic.
By Mariano Aguirre
The New York Post editorial on 5 January 2007 read: “How did this man ever become president of the United States?” Readers might have thought this was a crack about President George Bush in a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch. But the editorial went on: “He’s gone from failed president to friend of leftwing tyrants and global scold of anything that represents America’s legitimate interests”; he wanted to “demonise Israel” and had secretly given “PR and political advice to Yasser Arafat”. The Post was damning not Bush, but Jimmy Carter, and it said Democrats should “cut all their ties” to him for “when he flatly condones mass murder, he goes beyond the pale”.
Carter was president from 1977 to 1981, but the editorial was reacting violently to his recent publication of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (1). In it he wrote that if the Israelis continued their repressive policies in Gaza and the West Bank, blocking any possibility of a Palestinian state, the region could move towards South African-style apartheid: “Two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights” (2). The [Jewish] Anti-Defamation League responded in the media by accusing Carter of anti-semitic views.
Carter insists that he was talking about Palestine, not the situation in Israel, but there has been vociferous reaction in sections of the US Jewish community. Like the Anti-Defamation League, they take any criticism of Israel to be anti-semitic. The protests have succeeded: both the chairman of the Democrats, Howard Dean, and their leader in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, distanced themselves from Carter. In this early pre-election period the affair was unwelcome and pushed them to take a stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The book continues to sell well, though. Henry Siegman, the Jewish American political analyst and director of the US Middle East Project, sees nothing new or problematic in it, and the reactions only reveal “the ignorance of the American political establishment, both Democrat and Republican, on the subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict” (3).
Carter is director of the Carter Centre for Conflict Resolution, and he engineered the Israeli-Egyptian agreement on the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Sinai Peninsula before the 1979 Camp David Accords. In the book, he draws on over 30 years of experience in the region and his contacts with its leaders. He explains the background in layman’s terms and provides a balanced account of the options proposed for a lasting settlement, including the need for two independent states and solid guarantees for Israel’s security. An unprejudiced reading shows that, though critical of Israeli policies, he is not hostile to the state, contrary to the claims of his detractors.
Primary obstacle to peace
Carter believes that the region will be plagued by terrorism as long as the Israelis continue their repression, a scandalous belief during the war on terror. He stresses that “Israel’s continued control and colonisation of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land”. At the same time he condemns Palestinian terrorism (although not convincingly enough, according to Ethan Bronner in The New York Times on 7 January 2007). He adds that, since the Camp David Accords, successive Israeli governments have been the main obstacles to peace, and points out that the Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin was the first to break the parties’ commitment, under the accords, to UN resolutions 242 and 338, which stress the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and call for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the West Bank and Gaza and the recognition of the Palestinian people as a separate political entity, with a right to determine their own future.
In Carter’s view, Begin’s actions support the suggestion that no concrete offer was ever made to Yasser Arafat about the creation of a Palestinian state during talks at Camp David in July 2001 with prime minister Ehud Barak and US president Bill Clinton; it is wrong to pretend that Arafat was responsible for blocking the negotiations. Clinton’s special envoy to the Middle East, Dennis Ross, has berated Carter about this (4) but there is plenty of support for his idea elsewhere (5).
In an interview, Carter said: “There is a general feeling throughout the Arab world, throughout Europe, not even noticed in this country, that our present administration has not given any consideration… to the plight of the Palestinians. And you don’t have to be anti-Israel to protect the rights of the Palestinians to have their own land and to live in peace and without being subjugated by an occupying power.” Such views may be current in Europe and the Arab world, but they are less frequently heard in the US. Carter accuses the Bush government of abandoning the Palestinians to their fate, and Israel of blocking any possibility of an accord. The refusal of the Bush and Olmert administrations to negotiate with Palestine’s Fatah-Hamas coalition in March 2007 proved this.
In response to the attacks on his references to apartheid, Carter explained: “The alternative to peace is apartheid, not inside Israel… but in the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem, the Palestinian territory. And there, apartheid exists in its more despicable forms; Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights.” For Carter there are three essentials for peace in the region: guarantees on Israel’s security, an end to Palestinian violence, and recognition by Israel of the Palestinians’ right to a state in its pre-1967 borders.
Worse than South Africa
Carter said that life in the West Bank can be more oppressive for the Palestinians than it was for South Africa’s black population. Israel is becoming less dependent on Palestinian labour, as work-seeking migrants arrive from other countries in the region, while the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank has led to a military presence far more obtrusive than there used to be in South Africa. Israeli settlers have occupied Palestinian land and Israel has introduced sophisticated movement controls to protect them and their settlements.
To read more click on the title of this article.
In Sam Harris' book "End of Faith" he talks as though we have no choice but to take on the Islamic States of the Middle
East or at the very least hope that the people will stand up for themselves and topple the regimes from within. But he
acknowledges that as long as the West depends on oil, then the Islamic States will always be corrupt because the
leaders are rich from the money they make from the oil and have the capacity to cause potential problems to the
security of the world by being able to invest in high tech military weaponry such as having nuclear capabilities – such
as in Iran’s case. If the West was to have invested money into alternatives instead of heavily relying on oil then the
Islamic States would loose their power and the corrupt leaders would have nothing to offer their people and hopefully
there would be regime change and the safety of the world would be more balanced. This piece taken from this string
probably says it better than I can. “Their bone of contention is that we build bases there and that we contaminate their culture with ours. If they were all
poor, they would be relatively powerless to do anything about it, but because everyone wants what they've got, they
have the leverage and the resources to pursue their ideological goals. If we had continued the energy policies set forth
by Jimmy Carter instead of largely abandoning them in the late '80s, our problems in that region would be minimal
because with some degree of energy independence, we wouldn't need their oil so much and they wouldn't be so
important. To a large extent we have made them what they are.”So it appears that we just have to hope that diplomacy will some how achieve some peace as continued fighting is
obviously not the answer. I think we have had enough time to prove this fact despite what we are being told by others.
Plus it is time that more money was spent on our future in terms of energy resources that are more sustainable for the
future without relying on oil. Just imagine if all of the money that was spent on this war had of been pumped into
alternative energy forms of energy where we could have been now.
Anyway whether the electric car was or is an answer, I think if we had of spent more money on all types of alternative
energy sources instead of a war that appears to have been a waste of time, our world would have been a lot better off.
The presentation goes for about 33 minutes and was produced in 2005 by the American Task Force on Palestine. Given that a few things have changed over in Palestine since this production I have also included a couple of videos where the ATFP comments on recent events in the Palestinian elections and internal violence.
.
.
My hope is that a
line can now be drawn in the sand and people can learn to forgive the past
violence and injustice and both the Israeli’s and the Palestinians can work together
and find lasting peace. It must be said
however, that resentment towards the US and other Western governments such as
the UK and Australia by many of the people in the Middle East will continue as
long as we have troops in Iraq.
For anyone who maybe interesting in a more in depth look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the documentary Occupation 101 has now been released for sale on DVD in the US and Canada.
Synopsis
A thought-provoking and powerful documentary film on the current and historical root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike any other film ever produced on the conflict -- 'Occupation 101' presents a comprehensive analysis of the facts and hidden truths surrounding the never ending controversy and dispels many of its long-perceived myths and misconceptions.
The film also details life under Israeli military rule, the role of the United States in the conflict, and the major obstacles that stand in the way of a lasting and viable peace. The roots of the conflict are explained through first-hand on-the-ground experiences from leading Middle East scholars, peace activists, journalists, religious leaders and humanitarian workers whose voices have too often been suppressed in American media outlets.
The film covers a wide range of topics -- which include -- the first wave of Jewish immigration from Europe in the 1880's, the 1920 tensions, the 1948 war, the 1967 war, the first Intifada of 1987, the Oslo Peace Process, Settlement expansion, the role of the United States Government, the second Intifada of 2000, the separation barrier and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, as well as many heart wrenching testimonials from victims of this tragedy.
Featured Interviews
Occupation 101 features a leading list of some of the most credible Middle East scholars, historians, peace activists, journalists, and humanitarian workers. For a complete listing, please click here.
At the moment there are some extracts from the documentary on YouTube if anyone is interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SbjAanvUqs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV8N9J9gJ9c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM1ruYCS6JY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg0ql9tA1-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-ZHRPHrOsI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Agn1dHqQlzY
This will be my
last entry for a while as I need to look after my own health. Goodbye for now.
Don't believe most of what you read, hear or see especially if it is coming from the mainstream media that is controlled by media moguls whose reporters are "paid to say".
Give me an independent journalist anyday at least some of what they say is somewhere near the truth.
Anyway I will just leave you with this bit of information and leave it up to you to make up your own minds.
Another article of interest is:
"Buying the War," Now it's Iran
By William Bunch05/23/07 "Attytodd" -- -- You would think that after after all the official and unofficial lies that came out of the Washington spin machine during the 2002-03 run-up to the war in Iraq, newspapers would be a little more sceptical about similarly unsupported, high-level but anonymous and bellicose allegations about Iran (or anyone else).
And you would doubly think that about a newspaper that, day in and day out, is one of the best in the world: Britain's Guardian.
You'd think...but you would be wrong:
Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.
"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."
The story does have another source -- another anonymous U.S. official, but in Washington:
"Tehran is behaving like a racecourse gambler. They're betting on all the horses in the race, even on people they fundamentally don't trust," a senior administration official in Washington said. "They don't know what the outcome will be in Iraq. So they're hedging their bets."
Boo! Scared yet?
Look, I think that reporting of the Iraq crisis should be as aggressive as possible, and that obviously includes talking to American officials in Washington and in Baghdad. And, the situation in the region has become quite volatile since our decision to invade it, and no doubt Iran is a player, but...
I can also tell you as a journalist with 26 years of experience behind me that this story is the biggest load of crap -- and that's not a phrase I would use loosely -- I've ever seen in my life. Two unnamed government officials as sources, and a perfunctory denial from an Iranian officials in the last paragraph -- and that's it?
This is a stunning allegation -- so stunning because it really makes no sense. Iran's government does have close ties with some of Iraq's Shiite leaders that we also seem to be propping up these days, but it is the bitter enemy of the Sunni forces that these unnamed Bush spinmeisters now claim they are also supporting. If such a bizarre reversal had taken place, and I were to write a story about it, I would be sure to talk to outside experts on the region and to non-U.S. government sources -- and quote them by name -- to prove such an unlikely premise was in fact true.
That did not happen. And in fact, the story is so "out there" that it would be best ignored -- except that you can't ignore it. For one thing, it's highlighted on the Drudge Report, and since Matt Drudge rules the world of Beltway media, it's going to become part of the public discourse. Also, in spite of its lack of even truthiness, let alone truth, it does prove -- just like the top-selling "Christian book" calling for an American jihad against Tehran -- the lengths that some of our leaders are still willing to go in formenting Armageddon.
But the fact that one of the world's better newspapers was willing to play along -- or that my own colleagues in the mainstream media seem to never learn -- is the saddest development of all. Didn't anyone watch "Buying the War"?
William Bunch is the senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News and its former political writer. Visit his blog http://www.attytood.com
-------------------------------
Now just in case you want a bit more information here is another interesting story which if it is true, it greatly saddens my heart.
Bush
Authorizes New Covert Action against Iran
This entry started out as a reply to a comment but I have decided to post it as an entry to gain more attention to the issue of Peace.
Yes Peter I absolutely agree with you. I have been saying that it is time that what I would believe are the true followers of Jesus Christ start to say the following in regards to the war and oppression in the Middle East,
My
hope is that when people such as Christians and other religious people
and atheists do a search for a group that matches their belief system
that they come across our group United for Peace and consider joining.
I believe that there are many peaceful Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Atheists and all of the other groups I have missed and it is these people that need to mobilise.
I was raised as a Christian but I do not consider myself to be a Christian, I admire the teachings of Jesus and so I respect all Christians who try and live by his teachings of love for all mankind. I relate very strongly to the Buddha's philosophy as I believe it has a lot to offer the world when it comes to matters of peace. I am not interested in getting bogged down with religious dogma but prefer to follow the various teachings as I feel they were meant to be followed. So I do not belong to a religion as such, I prefer to embrace the worthwhile teachings from the various sources**. I am not very well versed in the other mainstream religions and non-religions of the world, but I am prepared to learn about them and understand them and that is why I have joined their/your group(s) at VOX.
So please don't stone me or belittle me for posting this article to your group - I come in peace :-)
For me it really doesn't matter what we
believe as long as we all have the goal of accepting each other and we
aim to live peacefully side by side.
We cannot dismiss the benefits of religion because of the extremists in the world. We must remember that Gandhi based his campaigns of non-violence on the teachings of various religions and Martin Luther King Jr based his non-violence campaigns on the teachings of Jesus. I cannot ignore the campaigns of non-violence by Buddhists such as H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama (China/Tibet and the world) and Thich Nhat Hanh (Vietnam and the world). It is a shame that our Australian leaders won't have a meeting with the Dalai Lama when he is in this country over the next few weeks - maybe they will change their minds as it will be a great opportunity missed if they don't meet with him.
I plan to write an entry on the teachings of Jesus and how wrong he would see this war in Iraq, based on his teachings - from the Bible.
I would love to hear from Muslims and get their perspective as an everyday Muslim what their teachings really say about love and killing. I would love to hear it from them, as I am sick of hearing it from the extremists. The same goes for all of the other religions, I don't want to hear it from the extremists in your religion I want to hear the views on love and war from the everyday rank and file members - the people who count.
At the moment we really do need to hear from the Christians, Muslims and Jewish people as the wars in the Middle East do concern these religions the most. The Middle East issues affect us all but these are the religions that need to start voicing some common sense. For the benefits of their religion they must make their voices heard if they are really for peace in this world.
"Not in Our Name"
I hope so.
Peace and love to all.
While I have got your attention I would like to recommend a documentary to any one who may not have had the opportunity of watching it. Firstly thank you to Snowy for recommending it to me in the 1st place.
The documentary is "The Power of Nightmares" it is an excellent documentary that shows how both the Western world and the Islamic people have been mislead for decades. If you don't agree with what is shown that is okay, but please don't deny yourself the chance to see how you may have been mislead by our leaders. Anyway for anyone interested it can be viewed and downloaded as a 3 part series at VideoGoogle or at archive.org if you have a slow internet speed.
I have decided to mention this documentary series here as it may help reduce the divide between the Western and Islamic worlds and therefore help lead towards world peace.
** Edited 28/05/07.
I would also like to add that when I say "Not in My Name" I do not intend it to mean that I/we take no responsibility and walk away from the situation, but I mean it to say that we will no longer allow others to continue the call of war in our names and we wish to let others know that it is not okay to continue with the constant calls of war and we wish to do something postive about it. Please see my rather long comment below for a full explanation of my true intent.
My Groups
-
Voxaholic Updated: 2 minutes ago
-
weird parents Updated: 12 minutes ago
-
Left Wing Updated: 24 minutes ago