next »

[jonesey]

Good points, again.

I am sure, in the event of unification, he would continue to live in Jaffa.

Except...that he lives in Sweden under the Swedish name he took in 2001. 

As far as being "highly respected."  By whom?  I mentioned several parts of his C.V that don't add up. 

As far as this:

What if the reader thinks the suicide attacks were brought on by Israel using an army to kill nearly 8 Palestinian children for every one Israeli child killed by Palestinian retaliation?

There's a difference between collateral damage in war and the deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorists.  No, the issue is not semantics.  If you think they are the same, I'm guessing you might see the 9/11 attacks as a legitimate strike against the United States.  The line of reasoning is similar.

I believe that a substantial majority of the Western media is owned by people of Jewish extraction. Do you dispute this?

Well, Rupert Murdoch might.  Or Jack Welch (GE), or John Malone, or Ted Turner, or, well, you get the idea.  Or maybe you don't.

[solly]

Jonesy.

Israel grants right of citizenship to any person of Jewish extraction, born anywhere in the world. I think it somewhat disingenuous of you to question the "Jewishness" of a writer as you seem to be doing. In any event, what does is matter? Surely it is the merits of the writing that we should base our debate on.
Shamir's biography asserts that he lives in Jaffa. You say he lives in Sweden. Abe Foxman lives in America. Where are we going with this line of argument?

In future I shall dismiss all such argument as "ad hominem" and hope that readers will understand the reason for doing so is simply to save time. The readers can do their own research if the personality of anyone I may quote is important to them.

There's a difference between collateral damage in war

Is it a War being fought in Gaza and the West Bank?
I thought it was an Occupation in which case the U.N. Charter and the Geneva convention with their duties of care and preservation of property rights should hold sway. If I am correct, I think, from the relative casualty numbers, Israel is somewhat remiss in it carrying out it's obligations.

Consider the following.

The opposing parties consist of an organised Army, reputedly the fourth largest in the World armed with highly accurate weapons versus a civilian population sprinkled with militia armed with improvised weapons.
The stated aim of the superior, organised force is to preserve order, the tactic of the extremist opposition is to fire home-made rockets at random civilian targets.

How is it possible that 7-8 times as many children in the occupied territories are "collateral damage" of accurate fire as are "collateral damage" of random fire? Logic would seem to dictate a vastly different statistic would it not?

You seem to have something of an obsession with suicide attacks despite my previous post about Baruch Goldstein. Shouldn't we be examining the circumstances that give rise to such a drastic act of despair rather than focusing on just one aspect, the evil that is unleashed on the victims? Is it not true that many historical figures who gave their lives for a cause that they believed in are regarded as heroes? Was not Samson one of the first? Is it not possible that the widespread depression and despair documented among young Palestinians might just be a symptom of the occupation? Could this be a contributing factor to the phenomenon?

Well, Rupert Murdoch might.  Or Jack Welch (GE), or John Malone, or Ted Turner, or, well, you get the idea.  Or maybe you don't.

No, I don't get the idea. As far as I know, Murdoch's Mum was Jewish but I do not see that as significant. His stated support for Israel is more to the point. Ted Turner founded CNN but as far as I know, does not have much of a stake in it now. And so on. If I started to list the Israel-Firsters who have a stake in the media we would be here all night and with no good result. As I said before, the point at issue is:

is this power being used to give a false picture of events and can we discuss it without  being accused of  adhering to some loony conspiracy theory?

In order to discuss this we only have to postulate that media ownership by Israel's supporters is significant.  If you dispute this, so be it, let the lists be compiled and presented.

[jonesey]

Solly,

I get what you're saying, but a writer's background and opinions are relevant in his or her work.  If the writer has a pattern of anti-Israeli bias (to include support for neo-Nazi organizations) then it seems to me appropriate to bring it up. 

What I'm getting at, overall, is that there don't seem to be a lot of reasonable people who take the stance that you do.  At least, not that you've shown.  That doesn't mean they aren't out there.  I'm familiar with Turkish and Iranian writers (novelists, mostly) who are critical of the situation in Israel, but they don't donate money to Hamas, either.  Or advocate bombing.

Yes, I'm "fixated" on suicide bombing.  It's the weapon of choice for terrorists throughout the Middle East, whether in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere.  Should we look at the cause of this?  Of course, but suicide bombing, despite your earlier posts, seems to be (and I stress "seems") an Islamic tactic.  Certainly, the number of Muslim suicide bombers greatly exceeds those performed by other groups.  It seems that this is due, primarily, to some sects of Islam using the Koran to justify this action.  Again, I stress "seems" as I don't have a history of suicide bombing before me as I write this.

Let's clear up a couple of things:

is this power being used to give a false picture of events...?

Probably, but only in the sense that no media can truly capture what it's like for troops on the ground.  Are they deliberatly misleading the world?  No.  If you want false, misleading news reports, you watch Al-Jazeera (who, if you're wondering, I felt the United States should have targeted, militarily, during the initial invasion of Iraq, as they are little more than a terrorist mouthpiece).

...can we discuss it without being accused of adhering to some loony conspiracy theory?

No.  At least, not when the examples posted of people discussing it are loony conspiracy theorists.

[suntoryboss]

have there been ANY palestinian christian suicide bombers? If not, how can it be "the occupation"?? Do the Israelis treat christians better????

[solly]

but a writer's background and opinions are relevant in his or her work

I agree to a limited extent but they are just that, background. If Einstein was a Nazi, it would not diminish his body of work. Plato's work is remembered long after his sexual preferences are deemed irrelevant.

The current situation makes for strange bedfellows. As protest against Israel's actions grows, writers such as Carter, Pappe, even Benny Morris are being quoted on National Front sites. All too often this brings accusations that these writers "support" these groups, a chorus of "Anti-Semite", "Jew-hater", Self-hating Jew" is heard and people such as yourself use this brouhaha to discredit what the writer is saying. This is hogwash. Put plainly, I don't care if the commentator is black, white, brindle or sleeps with his mother. If he has his facts down, clearly referenced and makes a coherent case, I'll listen.

Incidentally, where did you get this?:

seems to associate himself with prominant neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists.

... Just curious.

What I'm getting at, overall, is that there don't seem to be a lot of reasonable people who take the stance that you do

By your lights, anyone who takes the stance that I do is unreasonable so I can understand how you arrived at this conclusion. Notwithstanding the fact that every truth discovered by man began with a minority opinion of one versus the rest, perhaps I am not quite as isolated as you suggest.
This poll is instructive:

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Over half of Europeans think that Israel now presents the biggest threat to world peace according to a controversial poll requested by the European Commission.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/1031-Poll.html

the number of Muslim suicide bombers greatly exceeds those performed by other groups.

Professor Pape does not agree with you.

Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, a Marxist-Leninist Hindu group opposed to religion, committed the largest number of suicide attacks, 76. The Kurdish PKK, which used the tactic 14 times, is headed by a secular Marxist-Leninist, Abdulah Ocalan. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, another Marxist-Leninist group, and the al-Aqsa Brigade, which has ties to the socialist Fatah movement, account for a third of the attacks against Israel. Communist and socialist groups account for 75% of the attacks in Lebanon. Islamic fundamentalists, he concludes, were associated with about only half of the attacks from 1980 to 2003. And such fundamentalist Islamic countries as Iran and Sudan aren't producing any suicide bombers.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf2005076_7420_db056.htm

Now I dare say Pape is quoted by a number of dubious sites and he may well have had a second cousin once removed who did time for obscene exposure but as he is Associate Professor of the University of Chicago I kinda respect him.

is this power being used to give a false picture of events...?

I am still disturbed by this survey which I posted earlier:

WASHINGTON, May 10 /U.S. Newswire/ – On Capitol Hill yesterday, a two-year study of network news coverage of Israel/Palestine revealed extensive underreporting of Palestinian deaths, particularly of children’s deaths. The study, conducted by media watchdog organization If Americans Knew, shows that in 2004 eight Israeli children and 179 Palestinian children were killed.

In reporting on this situation, the organization found that the networks reported on Israeli children’s deaths at rates up to 13 times greater than Palestinian children’s deaths. In reality, 22 times more Palestinian children were being killed than Israeli children.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-pr.html

...and this from Glasgow University which has, admittedly, a Scottish bias.

Extract:

The study suggests that television news on the Israel/Palestinian conflict confuses viewers and substantially features Israeli government views. Israelis are quoted and speak in interviews over twice as much as Palestinians and there are major differences in the language used to describe the two sides. This operates in favour of the Israelis and influences how viewers understand the conflict.

http://www.gla.ac.uk/centres/mediagroup/badnews.htm

Independent surveys of content in the U.S. media are rare. From my personal viewpoint, the almost universal ignorance of the basic Israeli/Palestinian conflict signifies that the media is not doing it's job from whichever side of the conflict one examines it.

Let statistics speak for themselves. According to a recent survey, only 3 percent of the American public even know that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied territories. Only 7-11 percent of the American public, according to recent CNN polls sympathize with the Palestinian people?s plight.

http://linkage.rockefeller.edu/wli/reading/biasmedia.html

Suntoryboss might find this quiz enlightening:

http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2006/12/the_seventy_two.html

The answers are here:

http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2006/12/the_seventy_two_1.html

[jonesey]

Solly,

You continue to make good, and thought provoking, points.  I appreciate it. 

I find President Carter to be very reasonable, and find it shameful the way he's being treated.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine...and the al-Aqsa Brigade

These aren't Muslim terrorist groups?  They seem to be from where I'm sitting.  The "Marxist" jargon is just semantics.

[jtsmr]

Who says you cannot talk about Israel? You're free to demonize and hate israel as much as you want. What's the worst that might happen? You'll be called an antisemite. Big deal, it's a word. However, draw a picture of mohammed, quote a dead pope from 600 years ago, and you'll get fatwas and embassies burned and death threats.

In terms of this very spirited and lively debate--I'm a fan of Solly and Jonesy, I tend to be pro-palestinian than not. But in terms of suntoryboss' comment above, I ask:

And why is this? Even while living in Turkey, the only so-called secular Muslim country, there was uproar of the Mohammed cartoons, though Islamic newspapers have satirized Jews and Jewry for years. There's nothing in the Koran, according to Koranic theologians, that explicitly forbades images of the prophet, if I am not mistaken.  What I have found in my daily interactions with Muslims, Turkish Muslims even, is that there is no self-criticism, self-reflection about their faith.  Why is this?  You cannot disagree, at least not vociferously, about Koranic scripture, Hadith, etc. A reading of Irshad Manji's The Trouble with Islam and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel, may be worth a read. 

Or, Jonesy, maybe you should create a subject-thread called Why can't we talk about Muslims? That would be interesting.

[solly]

jtsmr

Thank you for your kind words.

The cartoons are often cited as an example of the intolerance of Islam. But do we not have examples of similar intolerances in our own religious and secular communities?

The example that is most often quoted is the Western attitude to historical inquiry into the Holocaust but there are many others of variying intensity. I seem to remember a case of a young fellow being hauled before the courts for having an American flag sewn on his jeans. Is it so long ago that "Lady Chatterly" was put on trial? Catholics accept images of Christ, Protestants do not. The occasional Fundamentalist is driven to violence and murder of those who act against the Fundamentalist's strict interpretation of scripture. One might look askance at the Roman Catholic stance on birth control in this day and age. Bombing and murder have been perpetrated against legal abortion clinics and their staff.

I tend to the opinion that the cartoon controversy would have been a paragraph on page three were it not for the furor whipped up by the those who have conflated Arab resistance to injustice, terrorism and intolence in religion into one common enemy - Islam. This ignores the overwhelming majority of Moslems who subscribe to the former but disavow the latter two.

[jtsmr]

The cartoons are often cited as an example of the intolerance of Islam. But do we not have examples of similar intolerances in our own religious and secular communities?

You know, I have seen many other Islamic cartoons depicting Jews falling over a waterfall in a bloodbath, an image of the Swastika squeezed within a Star of David.  I found these reprehensible and inexplicable, yet within the range, of course, of "free expression."  And I do tire of using cliched, American patriotisms.  But I sense a kind of hypocrisy in this example.

The occasional Fundamentalist is driven to violence and murder of those who act against the Fundamentalist's strict interpretation of scripture. One might look askance at the Roman Catholic stance on birth control in this day and age. Bombing and murder have been perpetrated against legal abortion clinics and their staff.

Such as Rusdie's Satanic Verses or Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, though in the case of the latter, the Pope or the local cardinal did not order a fatwa against Scorsese.  Could you please, pretty please, explain the difference here? You or Jonesy, Solly?

I tend to the opinion that the cartoon controversy would have been a paragraph on page three were it not for the furor whipped up by the those who have conflated Arab resistance to injustice, terrorism and intolence in religion into one common enemy - Islam. This ignores the overwhelming majority of Moslems who subscribe to the former but disavow the latter two.

And I have always wished my Muslim brothers would organize more to protest against Islamic extremism.  And I do mean getting out in the streets in numbers, appearing in various media to speak forcefully against the degradation of their faith by dangerous hotheads.  Now I know that there are such organizations in England and the States that are known to do such things.  But the numbers are small and the attention given them is little.

[solly]

jtsmr

Such as Rusdie's Satanic Verses or Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, though in the case of the latter, the Pope or the local cardinal did not order a fatwa against Scorsese.  Could you please, pretty please, explain the difference here? You or Jonesy, Solly?

Not quite sure what the question is here, Could you tease it out a bit?

If the point being made is the "Official" clerical line versus the purely individual extreme action I agree, there is a point. However, we do not have to look far back in history to find Cardinals and Popes issuing directives of similar severity. In view of the fact that Christianity has a 300-year head start on Islam, in evolutionary terms, I think there is a case to be made for forbearance and diplomacy in the short term.

To take another example, Rabbi Kahane who advocated the killing of all Palestinian Males still has his admirers today. In fact, I believe his son is carrying on his ministry. I do not think he represents mainstream Judaic thought however and I would not be inspired to violent action by his words.

[jtsmr]

jtsmr

Such as Rusdie's Satanic Verses or Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, though in the case of the latter, the Pope or the local cardinal did not order a fatwa against Scorsese.  Could you please, pretty please, explain the difference here? You or Jonesy, Solly?

Not quite sure what the question is here, Could you tease it out a bit?

I was making two points in one, sorry, solly. Rusdie's Satanic Verses and Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ inspired fudamentalist violence, the former having inspired the Ayatollah's. wrath.  And sure, Christendom has killed and murder in the name of politics and God, let us be clear. 

There does not appear, however, to be any critical dialogue of Islam, and I mean really critical, coming from Islamic constituents.  Now I have read, in French, Caroline Fourest's Frere Tariq which explains Tariq Ramadan's brand of Islam.  There's no real critique in Ramadan's Islamic paradigm, though on some level I understand him.  Islam seems to lack rigorous criticism of its practices as explained to the West.  But, then again, making it understandable to the West may not be the point, or the goal. But it must be considered.

[solly]

jtsmr

Yes, I fully concur. It would seem sensible that any belief system should have a built-in facility for self-examination. The Anglican Church seems to carry this to extremes and has Bishops who are, in reality, agnostic.

As an agnostic myself, I must confess that I find all organised religions, with the possible exception of the C. of E. and some others I will mention below, incomprehensible in this regard as many discourage examination of the fundamentals. Any discussion with an adherent will eventually arrive at the point where faith must give way to reason.

It sounds to me like you may be vastly more informed than I in such matters but, if I may, I will make one small point.

The multi-denominational nature of Islam seems to correspond with Christianity inasmuch as the tolerance of criticism ranges from zero to infinite. I enjoy Idries Shah on the Sufis (as much for the enjoyment of reading him as for the content). It seems that Sufism is about as liberal as any religion can get. The Sufi is an inveterate questioner. The Orthodox might claim that it is not Islam at all but the Sufi would not agree. From that extreme we can draw a line to the Talaban, Wahabists etc. Along that line will be found opinions of all hues. Most Asian Moslems of my acquaintance seem to occupy a position on that line analogous to that of a practicing Roman Catholic. As a young man I can recall my Presbyterian mother cautioning my sisters to cover their heads before attending service, in precisely the same manner as my Moslem friends instruct their daughters today.

My point, I suppose, is that we fear that with which we are unfamiliar, even though the practice and the rhetoric that accompanies it does not differ in any great extent to practices with which we are more accustomed.

I must add that my view of Judaism is favourable in this regard. A friend of mine once said to me:
"You've seen pictures of the Rabbis stabbing the Torah with their fingers, arguing vociferously? They are arguing about interpretation!"

 Good on 'em, I say.

"Would the gift the giftee gie us, to see oursel's as others see us" -Burns

[jonesey]

Jonesy, maybe you should create a subject-thread called Why can't we talk about Muslims?

Good idea, but we're hitting on that in this thread, and the Iran one as well. 

[solly]

Good idea???

Gee Jonesy, you must have more spare time than me!!!

[jtsmr]

It sounds to me like you may be vastly more informed than I in such matters but, if I may, I will make one small point.

Not so.  I have always, ironically, found it easier to communicate with Muslims as a community/ethnic group than, say, than with those of the host country i.e., France, Spain etc.  However, I have found it difficult engaging them in commentaries of doubt concerning Koranic scripture.  I had a Turkish student once who told me he actually believed the Koran fell perfectly out of the sky, written by Allah/God.
I love him, but I just don't have the time.......

I enjoy Idries Shah on the Sufis (as much for the enjoyment of reading him as for the content). It seems that Sufism is about as liberal as any religion can get. The Sufi is an inveterate questioner.

I enjoy Shah, too. Which may explain my fascination for Gurdjieff and things 4th Way.  And Rumi's poetry strikes a mystical bell in me. I still fancy myself a Whirling Dervish.

Jonesy, maybe you should create a subject-thread called Why can't we talk about Muslims?

Good idea, but we're hitting on that in this thread, and the Iran one as well. 

Great stuff, you and Solly.  What, if any, is your principal misgiving with Islam or its practictioners?