AP on "Genocide"
A reader who's following the Darfur story closely was struck by the entry in today's Associated Press day schedule for a New York rally:
10:45 a.m.More than 150 rabbis rally against "genocide" in Darfur; Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, East 47th Street between First and Second avenues.
That would make AP one of the last institutions outside the Sudanese government to be officially skeptical about what's happening over there. But apparently it was a mistake, not policy.
"If that were in an AP story, we would send a correction to eliminate the quotation marks," emails AP New York Bureau Chief Howard Goldberg.
Of course, according to the Politicker Israel-jocker Style Guide, it's perfectly okay to put genocide in scare quotes when it's Palestine we're talking about.
Leila goes in that rare category with CXB of politcker regulars who are best ignored. Please just make believe she's not there. I suggest we build a security fence around her and then do a unilateral, Kadima style withdrawal.
Gatemouth, The increasingly routine twisted pro-terrorist and anti-Semitic rants of this moron who has even posted about "settlements in Harlem" should not go unchallenged.
Even if the term genocide is not applied to the Palestinians, LK can be comforted that the Times and other media generally take almost any term used by the Israeli government with a grain of salt, such as the security fence, which they simply call the West Bank barrier. Many settlements are dubbed "lands Palestinians claim for a future state." The Times even refers to the Six-Day War as the 1967 Arab War because it makes the Israelis sound too heroic. The Palestinians are holding their own in the media war.
12:39: I understand your temptation to do so; but she is nuts, and anyway, it disipates our attention from answering anti-Israel comments from non-bigotted posters who can make a coherent argument, and who should be answered.
Look at it this way; I understand perfectly well the arguments of those who say the elction of Hamas is good reason why Israel should do no more unilateral withdrawals; but the results of such a response would be a disaster. Like, responding to your appendix rupturing by saying you oppose its removal because that would be rewarding its bad conduct.
This wench needs to be quaranteened, not answered.
Whatever. I was totally joking on the settlements in Harlem issue - and Mr. Schumer invited such jokes when he dragged Israel's beef with the UAE into America with this ports deal nonsense.
As for you morons and screwheads out there, you're being totally hypocritical if (on the one hand) you can insist on calling a decade-long conflict in Darfur a genocide while chafing when the word genocide is applied to the 58 years of unremitting warfare the Palestinians have been put through, from the Stern Gang in 1948 to the IDF today.
Gatemouth, The idea of the withdrawals is wrong-headed. It is based upon the unsupportable assumption that the settlements caused the violence when it was the other way around. The terrorists only see withdrawal as encouragement from the goal they had from day one - the total destruction of Israel. Making believe that withdrawal will help will not change that fact. This is not Waldon Pond, it's reality. Their hatred of Jewish people is all-important to them. If the terrorists were willing to accept peaceful co-existence, there would have been peace along time ago. They are the only obstacle to peace. We have to deal with the reality of the depth of their hatred and not be fooled into believing that withdrawal is going to do anything but put Israel in even more danger.
Gatemouth, The reason I think that the disgusting and twisted perversions of reality spewed forth by Khaled should not go unchallenged is that those who are Jewish can not even attend anti-war protests in this country without the insult of all the hatred by all the Khaleds who are always accepted there. Minimizing this problem will not make it go away. Too many have been silent for too long.
Uh, terrorists caused settlements? No. The fact was that after committing acts of genocide against Palestinians in Lebanon that were considered by the Israeli defense establishment to be beyond the pale, Ariel Sharon had his military positions stripped of him. So he became Housing Commissioner, and used bulldozers instead of tanks - and got away with it, because he put up settlements right atop the bulldozed Palestinian homes.
The obstacle to peace has been, and always will be, Ariel Sharon and anybody stupid enough to think this war criminal was "a man of peace" at any point in his miserable life.
Hey 1:16, you should stop being a thin skinned idiot, who feels as if you're being "insulted" whenever Israel is (rightfully) criticized for being a racist, apartheid state. Are you a racist, or pro-apartheid? Then you shouldn't be insulted. And if you dislike racism and apartheid, maybe you should stop acting like a "good German" and actually bother to speak up against it.
Of course, if you're among those who think Israeli racism and apartheid, then you should accept the burden and stop whining.
Gateemouth, It would be wonderful if the grotesque revisionist history spouted by the Khaleds (who pretend that Arab terrorists have not declared war on modern Israel since it was formed and keep pushing the sick lie that for Israel to defend itself against terrorism is the same thing as strapping suicide belts to children to have them kill other peoples' children or bombing a Passover seder) would go away if they were ignored but it just isn't so. History shows that it is dangerous to ignore such maniacs.
Now, kids, play nice or you get a time out.
LK-
you're views are 100x more distorted then those that you are trying to object to.
you are so full of hate that you can't even let a gathering of Rabbis - on an issue that has nothing to do with Israel - go without anti-Israeli comments.
Your race baiting is old and tired.
I agree with Gatemouth: build a wall
Uh, you're ignoring that modern Israel wasn't just formed out of thin air. It was land carved out by the terrorism of the Stern Gangs, by the such great "humanitarian" acts as the bombing of the King David Hotel, etc. -- and despite all of the nonsense about the Holocaust justifying such atrocities, these were directed against the British and Arabs, neither of whom had a single thing to do with what happened in Europe.
Have Palestinians fought back? Yes, as all unrightfully occupied peoples have the right to do against their occupiers.
Interesting how all the anti-semites come crawling outta their little holes whenever "Rabbis" demonstrate to help people in places like Darfur from genocide. The United Nations and Arab world do nothing to help. Yet, it is an opportunity to criticize Israel and the Jews.
By the way, the context of the Arab conflict against Israel is pretty simple. They want to drive the Jews into the sea - before there was a Jewish state and ever since the Jewish state was created.
In addition more than a million Jews were driven from Arab countries and accepted by Israel as refugees. Meanwhile, the Arab countries have prevented most Palestinians from entering their countries to keep the issue of refugees alive instead of looking to improve their quality of life.
But go ahead and riot and send children out as homicide bombers instead of providing a good life. It keeps the dictators in place as long as they can scream about the Zionists and Jews.
well said, bubba
1:07:
I used to get angry when left-wing US Jews used to tell Israelis to put their children's lives at risk and withdraw from occupied territory. This was not our choice to make.
However, I am just as angry when right-wing US Jews tell Israelis to put their children's lives at risk and hold onto territory. This ain't our choice to make either.
It is clear that Hamas can not be dealt with. The question remains whether one wants to expend their blood and treasure defending borders quaranteened behind a fence, or defending settlements of little strategic value.
If my son or daughter were in the army, I don't think I'd want them bogged down in the middle of the 8th circle of hell. You gotta know when to hold em, and know when to fold em.
In addition, Israel cannot be a state which is (1)democratic, (2)Jewish and (3)include the West Bank. It can be any two ouyt of the three. Perhaps I'm a little compromised by liberal western values, but my choice is (1) and (2).
Go Kadima! Ignore Leila!
Funny how the establishment rabbis of New York can seemingly bend over backwards for Darfur - however much an atrocity, one that's only gone on since the 1990s - while giving nothing but support to Israel as it has committed genocide since 1948.
By the way, the context to Israel is easy: look at a goddamned map of Israel and you'll see who is pushing whom into the Dead Sea and Mediterranean Sea.
As for Gatemouth, funny, but notice how all that nonsense about democracy including the separation of the state and religion flies out the window with Israel. Sorry, but in the end a theocracy is a theocracy. At least Saudi Arabia doesn't make some stupid claim to be "the only democracy in the Middle East" (which Israel is, only thanks to having sabotaged democracy in Iran and Jordan).
3:13:
While I prefer America's system of church-state separation, Israel is hardly the only democratic country with an established religion. The word antidisestablishmentarianism is of British origin, and the Brits are hardly the only example. Israel is certainly not governed as a theocracy (Tel Aviv is the preferred place of refuge for Palestinian homosexuals), and to the extent that it is, the ones whose religious rights are impeded are non-Orthodox Jews, not Arab Muslims or Christian. While I certainly agree that Israeli Arabs are treated in many ways as second class citizens, they enjoy a right of politcal participation and a standard of living, both of which are superior to those of any Arab society in the Middle East.
Further, Israel is not the only Democratic state where blood helps determine status. In Germany, there are Turks whose families have lived there for four generations, who are culturally and linguistically German, but are still considered Turks. Meanwhile a Russian speaking Crimean Tartar from Soviet Central Asia can become a citizen tomorrow based on German origin back from sometime in the middle ages. It is actually us, rather than the Israelis whose attitudes about religion and ethnicity are anomolous.
As to Iran and Jordan, I'm not sure you can pin those on Israel. In the case of Iran, the Dulles brothers, who plotted the Mossadeque overthrow were no great friends of Israel either. And I'm not sure the Israelis can be held accountable for the rise of the mullahs either).
Yeah, having a national religion worked out JUST DANDY for the Brits - except for that whole trail of sectarian genocide around the world. If you don't think that whole idea was a catastrophe, then I suggest that this St. Patrick's Day you ought to go to a pub and and sing "God Save the Queen."
As for your comparing Germany and Israel -- well, let me say that I'm personally elated to hear that an Israel-backer has finally admitted that Israel upholds the same garbage laws as the racists of Bavaria. And gee, all this time you lovers of Israeli-apartheid were saying that we critics can't do the same.
Oh, and on Jordan and Iran -- you betcha that Israel supported that whole mess. That the Dulles Brothers were anti-Semites is beside the point - there are tons of anti-Semites who love Israel (look at Jeorg Haider). The fact is that as a rogue nation, Israel has always preferred to deal with anti-democratic neighboring regimes - they're easier to bribe and cajole.
To quote Beckett, "who farted"
To maintain that a religious state founded so that a religion targetted for extermination can survive (after being subjected to the worst genocide ever committed) is based upon apartheid is one of the most disgusting lies ever told in the history of the world. Such Hitlerish propaganda should never go unchallenged.
3:13 You sure sound like Khaled. If you are not the same person, that is all the more reason that Gatemouth and the others should realize that silence is no safe answer to those mortally opposed to the survival of the Jewish people (if they somehow failed to notice the historical consequences of such a strategy). The nation founded by Holocaust survivors who survived the worst genocide in history has been attacked since it was formed, but that reality does not exist in your world 3:13. No doubt, you would argue that Israel planned the wars committed against it as an excuse for expanding its territory. Your sick revisionist history must never go unchallenged. The wall that must be erected against it is not one of silence, but of truth.
Gatemouth, Regarding your post at 3:06, I think that your position on the settlements is mistaken. Withdrawal simply encourages those who think that they can shrink Israel's territory until it disappears. This is a matter of the worst and most ingrained type of religious hatred by those Arabs who refuse to recognize the right of the Jewish people to exist on this planet. It is they who have exiled and mudered Jewish people throughout the history of the Middle East. They will not be appeased through the surrender of land, they will only be encouraged by it. It is a grave mistake to think of this as a land dispute.
Never again should the mistake be made of thinking that the hatred of the Khaleds of this world can be safely ignored. History shows that their lies must be continually exposed and that these imbeciles must be shown the door. If you have forgotten why, try reading "Defying Hitler" by Sebastian Haffner.
12:48: Appeasement? have you read a word I've written? Not one word about appeasement. All about self interest. When someone bunts, it ain't done in the interest of helping the other team.
I'm being the unsentimental realist here. Did you know Bob Marley died because he refused to have his foot amputated (Rastaferians don't sanction amputation)? Me; I say you got a cancerous tumour, you cut it out. You want to be a Christian Scientist and solve the problem with prayer? Fine, practice your religion. But don't expect everyone else to die for the sake of your beliefs. You stay in Nablus. We'll guard the fence.
Oh yeah, I forgot. You live in Brooklyn and expect the dying to be done by someone else's child while you sit in Essex on Coney and argue about politics.
12:19, 12:34. 12:53: Yes, the best cure for bad speech is more speech. But, every once in a while you are given the gift of having the opposing position being articulated by someone whose manner of expression makes your points far better than you ever could. I only wish that all anti-Israel opinion was being articluated by folks like Leila. Sadly, some folks can make a better, more coherent, less inherently offensive articulation of their position. They do need to be answered. Leila needs to be left alone to whither and die.
12:34AM....the worst genocide in history ...
I guess they don't talk about slavery at your Yeshiva.
Now go read a book about "The Middle Passage"!
Ami: Is this really a productive line of argument?
Was the Middle Passage the worst genocide in history? Sort of depends on your definition of genocide. I was taught that true genocide required intent. Since the idea of the slave trade was to profit from the sale of slaves, the intent to conduct mass extermination was not there. However, even though the intent might have not been there, the impact was certainly genocidal in nature, and there is no doubt that the actual number of deaths were higher than those in the holocaust. On the other hand, one third of all the Jews in the world were eliminated, compared to a far smaller percentage of the black Africans.
So, I don't know, which is worse, AIDS or leukemia? Does it really matter? What matters today is that we learn the lessons from each. Obviously, the fact that the world did not learn from the lessons of the Middle Passage was a cause precedent of the holocaust.
So, even as I concede your point that the Middle Passage was the worst example of genocide in recorded history (and it does not bother me to do so), I have to ask: even if the holocaust was only the second worst genocide (or third, we can't forget the native Americans, whose case certainly fits the definition of genocide I grew up with) does that now undermine the case for the national aspirations of the Jewish people? Does a bronze medal get you a state, or will only a gold suffice?
Better we should learn all the history and apply its lessons by joining the Rabbis in their quest to stop the genocide taking place right now.
Ami: Is this really a productive line of argument?
Was the Middle Passage the worst genocide in history? Sort of depends on your definition of genocide. I was taught that true genocide required intent. Since the idea of the slave trade was to profit from the sale of slaves, the intent to conduct mass extermination was not there. However, even though the intent might have not been there, the impact was certainly genocidal in nature, and there is no doubt that the actual number of deaths were higher than those in the holocaust. On the other hand, one third of all the Jews in the world were eliminated, compared to a far smaller percentage of the black Africans.
So, I don't know, which is worse, AIDS or leukemia? Does it really matter? What matters today is that we learn the lessons from each. Obviously, the fact that the world did not learn from the lessons of the Middle Passage was a cause precedent of the holocaust.
So, even as I concede your point that the Middle Passage was the worst example of genocide in recorded history (and it does not bother me to do so), I have to ask: even if the holocaust was only the second worst genocide (or third, we can't forget the native Americans, whose case certainly fits the definition of genocide I grew up with) does that now undermine the case for the national aspirations of the Jewish people? Does a bronze medal get you a state, or will only a gold suffice?
Better we should learn all the history and apply its lessons by joining the Rabbis in their quest to stop the genocide taking place right now.