The rise of Lieberman means it’s time to withdraw aid and blockade Israel
Avigdor Lieberman has positions more extreme than Hamas — but will the US and EU be consistent and withdraw aid from Israel as he is made foreign minister?
By Matt Kennard on Tuesday, March 31st, 2009 - 865 words.
Avigdor Lieberman: the new Israeli foreign minister
When Hamas won the legislative elections in Palestine in 2006 the West reneged on their stated commitment to democracy and freedom. Even though an 80-strong delegation from the highly-regarded NDI and Carter Center followed the electoral process for two years and called them “open and competitive elections” that “compared favorably to international standards” the Palestinian people were regardless treated to a US/Israeli dual strategy of anti-democratic subversion and economic strangulation.
The Palestinians had shamefully voted the wrong way. Fed-up with the capitulation and corruption of the hitherto one-party rule of Fatah, they turned to Hamas, who won 45% of their votes. As soon as Hamas were voted in, the US and EU punished the Palestinians by withdrawing their official aid programs. To overturn the election results they co-opted Mahmoud Abbas, who, with heavy Israeli backing, eventually managed to cheat Hamas out of a coalition government in the West Bank. In Gaza it wasn’t so easy although the same coalition did try. For Gaza they enlisted the services of agent provocateur Muhammed Dahlan to launch an anti-democratic coup against the Hamas government, which failed but with a considerable death toll.
Unable to overturn the will of the Palestinian people in Gaza by violent subversion, the Quartet and Israel turned to Plan B: strangle Gaza until it couldn’t breath. Dov Weiglass put the plan most eloquently when he said, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” The continuing blockade of Gaza has achieved its goal in this respect. “Chronic malnutrition is on a steadily rising trend and micronutrient deficiencies are of great concern,” said a recent Red Cross report on the state of Gaza.
The reasons for the cutting of aid by the US and EU, and their backing for Israel’s blockade are quite simple. Javier Solano, the EU’s foreign policy chief, told the Palestinians before the election that it would be impossible to support a party that fails to recognize Israel and renounce violence. Putting aside the not-incidental facts that Hamas has accepted the existence of Israel along the 1967-borders, and the ceasefire they had abided by before Israel broke it on November 4th 2008 by killing a family of six in Gaza, this is a strange precedent to set.
But let’s try to untangle it and take it seriously. Essentially it says: the US and EU are in favor of democratic elections, unless the people vote the wrong way and elect leaders who have a proclivity for violence and take impractical political positions. If this happens we will attempt a military coup and if that fails withdraw all aid and blockade the population. This is a strange precedent to set, one I wouldn’t like to generalize as an international relations norm, but it might be interesting if applied consistently.
If it was, all aid and business ties with Israel would be stopped this week, because this week a new Israeli coalition government sees the ascension to Foreign Minister of the far-right Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman founded the ultra nationalist Yisrael Betanyu party which hopes to repatriate a third of Israel’s Arab population by excising three villages from Israel proper while entrenching and expanding settlement building in the West Bank, making a viable Palestinian state impossible. Lieberman most definitely does not believe in “Palestine’s right to exist”, and his platform is based on unashamed bigotry. He has proposed that every Israeli citizen take an oath of loyalty to the Jewish State or leave, a barb aimed at the “dual-loyalty” Arab population, and most recently tried to get Arab parties banned from the election while calling Arab-Israeli politicians “terrorists” and “like Hamas”.
His record on violence is not much better. He has proposed bombing three different countries — which beats Hamas, who only target one so far. Israel’s new foreign minister has Tehran, Iran; Beirut, Lebanon; and even the Aswan Dam in Egypt within his sights.
To be fair Lieberman has had two cabinet positions in the Israeli government previously so calling for a blockade of Israel could be a bit late. But these positions (one when he was still in Likud) did not give him the powers to enact his Hamas-esque policies — he was Transport Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs, so we’ll give the US and EU the benefit of the doubt for missing it. His ultra nationalist party also had nothing like the mandate they were given by the Israeli population in the last election, which put them ahead of even Labour. Now the US and EU have no excuse, they must punish the Israeli population for voting the wrong way in the same way they did the Palestinians.
Lieberman is the embodiment of everything Hamas are accused of: bigoted, against a peace settlement, and for unrestrained violence. For all those who defended the withdrawal of aid from Hamas and the blockade of Gaza it is time to be consistent and support the same for Israel. At the moment the blockade of Gaza has been a massive failure, but unless the US and EU act soon to isolate Israel it will be not only a massive failure but a huge hypocrisy.
(+5 rating, 5 votes)
Loading ...41 Comments
Leave a Reply
Matt Kennard
26London
Matt Kennard graduated from the Journalism School at Columbia University as a Toni Stabile Investigative scholar in 2008. He now works for the Financial Times in London. He has written for the Guardian, Salon, The Comment Factory and the Chicago Tribune, amongst others. In 2006 he won the Guardian Student Feature Writer of the Year Award
mattkennard@thecommentfactory.com
Articles by this author
-
Chavez, Morales and Correa must speak out on Iran
As I said some months ago, when I get depressed about the state of the world I’m always cheered to think of the movements in Latin America that are genuinely empowering the hitherto marginalised sections of those societies. This movement has the power to make itself felt throughout the world – but it needs to apply itself consistently. That can even take the approach of Lula who stopped short of denunciation and just put forward an offer of sanctuary in an effort to shame the Iranian regime
-
The Observer's Chomsky fetish
Chomsky is big enough to put up with this kind of rubbish, but can the Guardian or Observer, the most influential left-wing journal in the English-speaking world, really not find one journalist who doesn’t have a visceral dislike of Noam Chomsky? Sadly, but maybe predictably, for a newspaper made up of liberals pickled in the self-righteous playfields of Oxbridge liberalism, I guess they don’t
-
The fight to preserve Latin America's democratic revolution
For Prof Anderson the template of Spain after Franco’s destruction of civil society “has become the general formula of freedom: no longer making the world safe for democracy, but democracy safe for this world.” Through a confluence of historical factors, Latin America is the crucible where the last chance to make a world safe for democracy is being fought. The importance of this battle shouldn’t be underestimated: if it fails, we might not get another chance
-
Jan Nederveen Pieterse on Globalization and Empire
The fundamentals of American weakness are its shrinking share of world manufacturing, its gargantuan consumption, low savings rate, faulty policies (massive military spending, massive war spending, deep tax cuts) and gigantic financial deficits. Some problems are structural (high American health care costs are a function of lack of restraint on pharmaceutical industries and reflect the large influence of business interests); this prompts outsourcing, which further weakens the American economy. The military interventions are destabilizing (increase risks for others) and costly (adding to American economic problems) and erode American legitimacy. So the problems are not merely overstretch
-
Massive Attack on influences, war and the cult of fame
I think a lot of it is damaging and I feel there has to be at some point a change in the way we deal with different peoples situations and development. I hate double standards more than anything – I hate the current row over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and whether they should be allowed to have nuclear technology or even nuclear energy. It seems to me that our history is littered with hypocrisy and I find that quite hard to live with being a British citizen
-
Matt Kennard on Russia Today extended: 'US Army sent 'hardcore' neo-Nazi troops to Iraq and Afghanistan'
Under the Bush administration, the U.S. military allegedly started to recruit neo-Nazis and gang members to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Investigative journalist Matt Kennard talks to RT about his researh into these allegations and other problems in the US military.
-
Tony Benn on the EU, Cuba and Islam
Well I don’t think it helps to go around saying, “Try Blair for war crimes,” if you’re trying to persuade Labour MPs to vote against the war and they are told they’ve got to arrest and see Blair and Cherie locked up. It’s ridiculous. I said this to all the people… I mean it’s mad… I can understand peoples anger, but it is crazy
-
Hilary Benn on aid, the US, Iraq, and Tony Blair
The truth is: The real answer to the question why did we take the decision that we did, is because on the 18th March 2003 a majority of the House of Commons voted to do it
-
Johann Hari on Chomsky, Hitchens, Iraq, and anarchism
But I think Hitchens arguments are so well put and one should engage with them and take them at face value. He says Saddam was intermeshed increasingly with Islam. Zarquawi, for example, was already in Iraq before the war. I don’t agree with his argument on that. Ba’athism and Islamism are different things, and should be opposed for different reasons
-
Polly Toynbee on Iraq and New Labour
No I think it’s very difficult to navigate because for one thing even if you more want to bring democracy to the Middle East more than you want to take the oil – which I think probably is the case now – but such is the fear of fundamentalism that you wonder if you knock over the Saudi’s who takes over? Is it even stronger Wahhabist, and is that even more dangerous, and even less democratic? It’s very difficult
-
Noam Chomsky on the US Empire and hopes and prospects
They hope that China will organize a coalition of peace loving states to stop the militarism and aggressiveness headed by the US and its British ally. Well it's interesting that they have such contempt for American democracy and British democracy: they don't even dream of it coming from within. I don't agree with it - I don't think we have to wait for China to save us from all doom - I think we can do it ourselves
-
Professor Michael Mann on America's incoherent empire
The most you can have is a kind of informal imperialism where the state remains sovereign - you don’t try to interfere in it but you limit its options. This is what, typically, the US has done in Latin America when it is not intervening. The US is formidable. People contrast so-called multilateralism to unilateralist and they think of the United Nations. The US runs the UN and had run the UN for most of the 1990s and that’s what the US can do because the US provides certain resources that no-one else can provide. Nothing much is going to happen in the way of international activity unless the US is part of it and leading it and that’s what the US can return to again. What I think it cannot do is to reconstruct foreign countries on its own without having considerable local support
It is clear in your article that you attempt to make an analogy between the Palestinians overwhelmingly voting in to power the Islamic, Sharia seeking, Hamas(45%) to 11% of the Israeli public voting for the far right wing fascistic Yisrael Beiteinu. That unfortunately is where the premise of your article fails. Neither the US nor Israel would be against a Palestinian government where members of Hamas bodied the parliament or held important positions. It is Hamas dictating the direction that is the problem as it would be a significant hindrance to peace if Yisrael Beiteinu were to have led the formation of the coalition and the agenda of the government. What is clear from any democratic process is that parties, such as Hamas or maybe Yisrael Beiteinu, that seek to end the democratic process should not be allowed to participate. A democracy has to protect itself against authoritarian or totalitarian thugs who seek to destroy it.
I see your point, but I think the premise of the article is a bit tongue in cheek. I don't agree with overthrowing the will of the people whoever they vote in. And I think it's naive to think that if there was a Fatah government with a Hamas foreign minister, somehow Israel and the US would find that ok. The same process of subversion of would have taken place, like it did in West Bank actually where there was going to be a coalition govt…
The premise of your article also fails (completely and utterly) in two other espects:
a) You compare Liberman to Hamas – although your forget Liberman is not actually against giving Palestinians self-government (read the platform of his party). Neither is he for randomly bombing and killing all Palestinians wherever they may be. He also does not believe that the Palestinians are responsible for all wars and revolutions in the last 400 years (including the french revolution and both world wars), a belief hamas propagates about Jews. He also isn't for crucifying spies, a policy which hamas brought into force. Liberman is first and foremost an incompetent idiot. He is also a bigoted racist. He is also a dangerous racist extemist idiot. But he is nowhere near on par with Hamas.
b) You somehow ignore the fact that the first thing Liberman said as foriegn minister was "this government will abide by all signed agreements…. this government is bound by the road map, as it was voted on by the a previous government," thereby, complying with all international demands. This is exactly what is demanded of Hamas, and what they refuse to do, and that is the only reason they are under a boycott. You conveniently ignore this.. how typical.
I'll say it again – Liberman is a racist idiotic psuedo facist, and it is an embarsement that he is where he is, but tongue in cheek or not, your article simply fails….
I just saw this now:
a) Hamas have said they will accept Israel on 67 borders. Lieberman (and in fact Labor) are against that, which they show by continuing to build settlements (and a wall) beyond the Green Line which makes a viable state impossible. I would say he is worse than Hamas on the Peace Settlement, and that is uncontroversial (if you hadn't been brainwashed).
b) Lieberman can say what he wants. Bush said he went to war with Iraq to bring democracy. Omri, look try to not take the pronouncements of politicians as statements of policy, they are meant to appease people.
So my article only fails to the extent that I didn't go far enough. Lieberman is actually far more against a just peace than Hamas, so an equivalence may be wrong, because it makes Lieberman look to good.
Again – you look reality in the face and compeltey and utterly fail to understand it….
a) Hamas does not say it will accept Israel on the 67 borders. They say they will accept a 10 year truce if Israel withdraws. I'm tired of pointing this out to you over and over. The 67 borders themselves are irrelevant, so long as a peace deal can be agreed based on two states. The Palestinian state will still have territory the size of 100% of the west bank and Gaza.
b) you fail to distinguish between a statement of aims to a statement of policy. Liberman has accepted the road map – that is a statement of policy on which negotiations will take place. It has nothing to do with "appeas(ing) the people". I don't think you're making very much sense. Also, if you looked into the history of diplomacy in the region, you might be able to put this statement into context. Also, bear in mind that the people who voted for Liberman are probably against the road map anyway.
Again your conclusion is based on a) a lie b) leaving out the majority of the facts (that hamas wants to remove the Jews from Israel for anti-semitic reasons, for example) and c) a total misunderstanding of reality.
When the Liberman says that all Palestinians should be killed or exiled to Germany, and that they were responsible for WW2, maybe you will have point. Right now you're talking utter nonsense.
Look Omri it's difficult to debate with you because you have this complex where you have to call everyone who disagrees with you stupid or retarded or not dealing with reality — it's probably because it's strange to see people deviating from the party line.
Anyway. A) Hamas did not put that clause in their acceptance of the 1967 borders. They said they would accept a final deal on 67. The 67 borders are very important Omri unless we want to see a Palestinian state broken up into three parts in West Bank (cut through by settlement roads) and Gaza having any degree of autonomy. 67 borders aren't important for the Israeli politicians and settlers because they don't believe in them. Remember God gave them the West Bank. I want a viable state, not some bit of land — that Israeli statesman said, "They can call it a state, they can call it fried chicken if they want" … I want to see a REAL state.
b) Lieberman might have accepted the Road Map but that is irrelevant as Israel has ignored the Road Map which calls for a halt to settlements. Lieberman has said we should stop thinking in terms of a two-state solution, he wants to kick all Arabs out of Israel and make Palestine some dependency with cheap labor and fodder.
You spout all the usual propaganda, that doesn't make you very clever Omri, even though you think you are. Try to think a little critically.
Where did Omri call you "stupid" or "retarded"? Also re. Hamas. What Hamas has said is that it will accept a Palestinian state on the '67 borders.
Of course it will! That doesn't mean accepting Israel except as a temporary expediency i.e. for the during of a hudna. The '67 borders are themselves "hudna" lines.
and John… I don't know who you think Yisrael Betenu are, but they do not want to end "the democratic process". I think they have been blown completley out of proportion – they are just a bunch of idiotic opportunistic politicians who said the things that a certain sector of the public wants to hear. They are no anti-democracy.
Hamas on the other hand is not a democratic party at all, because it has its own military force – which means its election is illegitimate regardless of what matt thinks about it.
This guy is totally terrifying.
"No Loyalty, No Citizenship" is his motto.
However, an Israeli I spoke to said this slogan is all bullshit and such an oath will never happen.
Also, I think the Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu coalition won't last long, especially after Lieberman starts freaking out Obama who, for all everyone says about how much of a reactionary he really is (and this argument is by no means invalid), I do think he has a genuine interest in the peace process, in marked contrast to his pusillanimous predecessor. At a certain point, dealing with Fatah will become much easier than dealing with this cruel bastard Lieberman.
Jesus fucking Christ it is impossible to describe how depressing having conversations with people who are like "Arabs only understand force/let's kick them into the sea," especially journalistic ethics demand taking a position of impartiality, which just means tacitly acceding to this despicable racism in the interest of teasing out more information about the situation here.
WpDiv-
What the hell are you talking about, where is there in israel indoctrination of the kind you see in arab countries of children?
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2066.htm
Listen to and support liberal arabs
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2062.htm
great!!! thanks very much for this – i'm glad this guy is there, and wish him all the best!
BOB is a typical Zionist "defender of all things Israel" who seems to hate anything Matt Kennard has to say against Israel, but will jump with unquestionable support if the writer even slightly criticizes Turkey. Also in true "pretense of sanity" attitude he gives a link to statements by some "liberal" arabs
bob—stop spewing all this nonsense in the comment posts, and get a life.
I am not a zionist, What does that even mean? I would consider myself an american patriot which you morons call zionists. You use the word zionists for everything. Why don't you first define what a zionist is before you throw it around like a dumbass. So tell me Damon, How is the arab guy not a liberal? Are you tring to persuade me that islamic jihadists are the liberals here?
How do you define a liberal? One whose views are in unison with American and Israeli propaganda? MEMRI is known to be a biased organization, and only shows the negatives of the Arab world. In fact, the organization has also been accused of incorrectly translating Arabic in order to make people hear what they want them to hear.
haha "known" by you…. and perhaps the Guardian…
It shows "negatives" because they are not shown to anyone in the west (or in Israel) – it also shows some positive, if you bother looking… And it focuses on terrorism and the Israeli Palestinian conflict because that is the function of the orginization. Expecting it to report the whether in Algeria, or tourism in Dubai is like expecting a sports channel to show a wild life documentary… MEMRI was started by Israeli to monitor the discussion of the Arab-Israeli problem in the Arab media. That is what it does.
ridiculous people..
It was started by an Israeli, and to monitor discussion of Arab-Israeli issues… that is exactly why it is biased. No wonder it will show only the negatives of the Arab world, and define liberals as it requires. There is no doubt that a lot of the acts of Arab regimes are undemocratic, totalitarian and are contrary to Islamic values, but these biased organizations do not base their judgment on these acts. Arabs with rational views are also labeled extreme if their views with regards to Arab-Israeli issues are critical of the American and Israeli administrations. In fact, this is inherent in US foreign policy and in the US media, where the dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt are considered "okay", but the far more democratic governments in Syria and Iran are depicted as ruthless and brutal. I am not saying that these governments are okay either, but the double standards that have been used to judge the Middle East is evident and unparalleled. As for MEMRI, they are well known for cutting out parts of interviews, articles and videos to depict people and organizations critical of Israeli policy as hostile.
That's a good one, the Syrian dictatorship is more democratic than Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Have you heard of the Hamza massacre. Try defending that one.
Why don't you explain to me also how democracy and islam go together? How is islam not discriminatory and hateful? What the meaning of a dhimmi is? a kufar? how the testimony of a women in a court of law is worth half that of a man's? That girls can marry at the age of 9 because the pedophile mohammed had a wife at that age.
Also, the notion that iran is somehow democratic is one of the biggest fallacies purported by the left nowadays. The Ayatollah has the last say in everything in Iran. Candidates that aren't "Islamic" enough are not allowed to run. You should look up what a democracy is and not your insane islamic definition. The left has thrown to the trash the liberal values it has fought dearly for and in a brazen display of anti-americanism made a pact with Islamic fundamentalists.
For the Islamic nationalist crimes committed by his 'comrades' are ok and forgiven, take for example the Hamza massacre, take for example the SWAT region being taken over by the taliban, take for example Sudan, take for example the treatment of Bahais under the Iranian regime.
No word but pathetic comes to mind.
By the way under your definition Al Jazeera is inherently biased as well, and why don't you define a liberal for us please?
BOB you are a bigoted racist.. Now you ignorantly insult a religious faith that more than a billion people follow. No matter what faith it might have been, you can not blatantly make racist remarks without any knowledge of it. You insult a man who has been regarded, by people of other faith as well, as one of the greatest men in the history of mankind. You make absolutely false remarks about the religion. Women are treated equally as men in Islam, and there is no dispute regarding how women are judged with respect to Islamic values of the Quran. The terms that you refer to are not part of the religion, even if they might be practiced by some fanatic people.
However, you seem to be too ignorant to understand this. You see extremists in the Swat valley, in Afghanistan, their practices, their implementation of Sharia law (which is by no means Islamic and is cruel and unjust) and come to conclusions regarding Islam. You did not even bother to read what I wrote in my last comment. I said that a lot of the acts, and in fact, I should now mention, most acts, of the Arab governments were contrary to Islamic values. I was not defending any Arab or even the Iranian government. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the American and Israeli governments and many of their media outlets in judging the region. Unfortunately, you did not understand any of that.
You also did not understand my comparison of Saudi Arabia and Iran. I already mentioned that the government in Iran was not okay, but somehow you jump to the conclusion that by bringing up Iran, I point to a democratic example to be followed by others. And when it comes to comparing the two countries, Iran is definitely more democratic. Women in Saudi Arabia are regarded as lesser beings or even worse, whereas in Iran, more than half college students are female, they had a female vice president and there is a lot more openness regarding many other issues than in most Arab countries. By this, I do not mean that there is no unfair treatment.
What I was trying to emphasize was that US and Israeli media outlets, at least the mainstream ones, were biased in judging the countries. They try to show that Iran is worse than Saudi Arabia or Egypt, and when they don't depict them as worse, they try to equate them. And in most cases, people and regimes are labeled moderates, liberals and extremists based on how favorable their views are of the American and Israeli administrations' actions, not on how liberal or extreme their views or actions in their countries are.
I think I condemn the genocide in Darfur more strongly than you do. I make this conclusion on the basis that you conditionally disregard the loss of life, in failing to condemn the Israeli army's actions in Gaza, and who knows, maybe even the actions that took more than a million Iraqi lives.
You are right, i am a bigot against people who believe that Mohammed was great, that Jesus walked on water and that moses had a dialogue with God. If that is most of the worlds population, so be it. Anyone that marries a girl at the age of 9 is a pedophile. It just so happens there were a lot of pedophiles back then. Despite this fact, to use the excuse of the prophet Mohammud, Peace be open Him, as a reason to keep the legal age of marriage at 9 years old in modern times is beyond me. Address the issues, either say it is wrong or right don't call people a bigot without addressing any of the statements. Is it wrong for women to be forced to wear the veil by law? is the age of 9 for marriage wrong? Back your statement up with your reasons!
You are absolutely blind if you think women are treated equally as men under islam. In all countries that impose Sharia law or base their laws on Sharia you can find more than a number of laws that discriminate against women. One of the most obvious laws is that a womens testimony in a court of law is worth half that of man. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are more than one type of Islam. Even Sunni Islam can be broken down to four different schools of thought. Unfortunately, because of Saudi and Iranian oil money the more strict and oppressive schools of thought are pervasive. America is also at fault because through the blind immoral consumption of America's cars and trucks, their oil revenue continues to grow.
You wrote "Saudi Arabia and Egypt are considered "okay", but the far more democratic governments in Syria and Iran are depicted as ruthless and brutal."
I asked you to defend the Hamza massacre in syria which you did not. You went straight to Iran and left out Syria in trying to explain the term "more democratic". Thus, your conclusion is already 50% wrong. You leave out points you can't argue for and make ad hominem attacks. Argue the content, not the person. I'll also point out that just because more than half of college students are female does not back up your argument that Iran is more democratic. As i see it, and correct me if I am wrong, both countries are ruled in the end by people who have the final say in any matter? The rest is theater.
I agree with you that in some parts of the media in the US they follow the moderate/extremist view in how the countries favor America's interests, not Israel. This does not occur in all parts of the media. One notable documentary is Micael Moore's 9-11 which showed Bush-Saudi ties in a negative manner.
You make one fallacious statement after another, You "condemn Darfur more than I" how so? I condemn the disproportionate attack in israel but fail to call it a genocide or massacre like yourself based on the facts and the reasoning that the democratically elected government of Hamas shares some of the responsibility. Acknowledge that you are the bigot in your treatment of Israel. I never thought the US should have gone into Iraq in the first place but that doesn't change the fact that most of the deaths in Iraq are caused by muslims killing muslims.
What you don't seem to understand is that Islamic fanatics in the middle east wield a large amount of power. They rule Iran and control organizations such as hizbolla and hamas. They are given a free hand in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. That is the problem i am trying to address.
Firtly, I agree with BOB that I have never encountered an Arab media source that wasn't biased outright (as in blatantly lied). The fact MEMRI is Israeli does not make it at all biased. I am not sure that saudi arabia or Egypt are presented as any better in US press. That is certainly not the case in the ISraeli media. But it is simply a fact that these regimes are more sympathetic to a peace deal with Israel than Syria and Iran.
MEMRI shows plenty from all around the Arab world, and they certainly let the segments speak for themselves. There is no way you can twist "redemption will not come until the Muslims kill the Jews" or "Hizballah was responsible for the 2006 war". I think your point is very weak.
How about Al-Jazeera? Last time I checked they had Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein on to debate; can't remember ever reading an op-ed by Finkelstein in the Jerusalem Post.
MEMRI are about the most biased "news" outfit in the world. They are a complete joke, they have been outed as liars and selective quoters. They are about as neutral as Pravda was.
hahah you're suggesting that Finkelstein is a measure of bias??? Finkelstein supports terrorist organizations and bases his views on un-academic lies. He has no legitimate view. That is not to say that he should not be published. Deshowitz is quite good at debating nutters – from Chomsky and Finkelstein to Meir Kahane, he does alright.
As for Israeli press – we don't need Finkelstein. We have our own lying nutters – like Gideon Levy and Amira Hess who write regularly for Haaretz, and have been for years. I don't think they would disagree with Finkelstein on anything, and they are only two of many.
MEMRI are not "news". They are useful when people like you, who work for the BBC and other networks, pretend like the Arab world has the most peace loving progressive-liberal politics. You just want to pretend that what you see on MEMRI is real. Well, it is.
**isn't real** sorry – you should install an edit option… would help me out.
No I would say Dershowitz is a lot more extreme than Finkelstein. Finkelstein is in agreement with the international consensus on two-states, he is against the illegal apartheid wall, and he was against the war crimes committed recently in Gaza. Dershowitz was for all of them.
Levy and Hass are about the only sane thinkers you have left in your press. Don't knock them.
I don't work for the BBC, and I never said the Arab world was full of peace loving liberals. Most of the reactionaries are held up by the West though, ever read about Saudi Arabia, ever read about Jordan?
Matt, you are delusional here is an article about the missing reporter in iran
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middl...
Roxana Saberi
Second-class women
- Despite playing a prominent role in the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah, the imposition of Sharia has severely curtailed women’s rights in Iran
- In legal terms a woman is often considered to be worth “half” of a man. Her testimony is only worth half of that given by a man. A family would receive twice as much compensation for the loss of son as a daughter
- Women are barred from running for president or serving as judges, although they are allowed to be members of parliament
- Iran’s only women’s magazine, Zanan, (Persian for “woman”) was shut down by the Government in January last year. Its founder, Shahla Sherkat, was accused of “offering a dark picture of Islamic Republic”
Stop your incessant promotion of a regime, which by its laws is discriminatory. Western countries are imperfect but through their laws they allow change, a country which does not let a law pass that is against islam does not
BOB you are hilarious, almost as funny as Omri. My whole political argument is bought down by a missing reporter in Iran? A regime I've never defended or argued about here. Good one.
No, your argument is brought down for a number of other reasons, one important one pointed out by John Forthright. The fact that you characterize israel on 11% of the electoral vote, and compare that to the majority of the palestinian vote for Hamas. If i'm not mistaken the left – arab parties, communist parties and ultra left parties got a bigger vote of around 13%.
The reason i posted the recent missing reporter is that she is a friend of a friend of mine that studied with her. I am amazed at the lack of criticism of any country perceived to be anti-American
By the way i couldn't give a crap if israel was dissolved that is why i am amazed every time complete morons call me zionist. Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.
The exact opposite of Sharia law which most of the people here have a problem criticizing for some reason. Give examples for your statements above, accused is not guilty. Also, i don't think they make the arab world look bad here, If you listen to the guy talk we need more of these type of people in the middle east and the united states. What we need less of is Sharia law and people that think it's the solution to world problems
Matt, as informed as your views are, what exactly do you think a blockade of Israel would achieve? Would this not cause more suffering and make things worse? Are you saying it should be done purely on a point of principle, no matter what the effects?
Israel will never, ever be blockaded by the Quartet, it's more likely that an asteroid will hit earth tomorrow. The purpose of the article was merely to highlight the hypocrisy of the US and EU — Israel's mask is off and they still can't do anything about it.
On another note I think a blockade on Israel would serve some purpose. I think the reason the country acts with such impunity and massacres so regularly is because it knows the US will always back it; if this support was withdrawn or harsher still a blockade imposed Israel would be lost, and they'd have to act more civilized because of it.
I don't think matt's views are 'informed'. He even states above that this whole article was written in a
" bit tongue in cheek" manner. Those of you who are not accustomed to the British post colonialist wit –
Tongue-in-cheek is a term used to refer to humor in which a statement, or an entire fictional work, is not meant to be taken seriously, but its lack of seriousness is subtle.
In essence, he humors himself by calling for a blockade of another country for reasons that john, seemingly more informed above, showed were 'lacking' , to be generous in terms. This man or boy is clearly wanting of a spanking or am i being a bit tongue in cheek in saying so?
Very good matt,
Al jazeera – a media outlet that 40-50% of its stories in the middle east are on israel, that hosted a terrorist that crushed a girls head in with a rock – Samir Kuntar. A media outlet that has a conspiracy theory section. A media outlet that has different stories for different countries.
Aljazeera.net
Aljazeera.com
english.aljazeera.net
Give me a break matt. Memri is not a news outfit, they are a translation outfit. They translate stories that the west might find interesting. There is no way you can twist some of the stuff they translate, even if you tried. Start debating the content – stop calling people brainwashed if they don't agree with you views. You make nothing but fallacious arguments to support your views. 2+2=5, Hamas is for peace = war = Hudna (10 year peace, not a lasting peace), Try to scratch the surface a bit so your arguments don't sound so superficial.
For some reason it's not coming up…
No I would say Dershowitz is a lot more extreme than Finkelstein. Finkelstein is in agreement with the international consensus on two-states, he is against the illegal apartheid wall, and he was against the war crimes committed recently in Gaza. Dershowitz was for all of them.
Levy and Hass are about the only sane thinkers you have left in your press. Don't knock them.
I don't work for the BBC, and I never said the Arab world was full of peace loving liberals. Most of the reactionaries are held up by the West though, ever read about Saudi Arabia, ever read about Jordan?
Deshowitz has always been for a two-state solution. Finkelstein believes in the right of return – therefore he does not believe in a two-state solution. He also supports hamas and Hizballah, who want to destroy israel – therefore he is not for a two-state solution. I don't care if he says he is. It's only part of the delusion he lives in. It only takes one look at the guy to know he's insane – look into his eyes…
Levy and Hass are by no means sane, but of course you say they are because they are anti-zionists. The Israeli press is filled to the brim with their views as well as many others who are similar, or who are borderline zionist… Even massive cultural figures like Yoram Kenyok and Yonatan Geffen.
I wasn't saying you work for the BBC – I was saying the editors at the BBC propegate your kind of views. What does it matter, in this argument, who is supported by who??? It is you who claims that Israel is a "violent paraiah" and that is is responsible for the war. You therefore imply that the arab side has no part in provoking war, because obviously Hamas and Hizballah are just heroic freedom fighters who are looking out for the best interests of their own people, not a bunch of relgious fanatics who would wage endless war for land they believe to be holy… they are peace loving liberals… o and if theyr are extreme, then Israel is to blame for that… right?
Finkelstein is completely rational and on-point. And he supports Hamas and Hezbollah when the regions they operate in are being decimated by Israel — so do I. I support anyone defending a defenceless people. You can't understand this because your levels of indoctrination in propaganda are so deep.
Well this is where you (and Finkelstein and Galloway and others) cross into Lalalland… you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
Hamas and Hizballah have no defensive fanction. Their raison de etre is to liberate historical Palestine from the Jews. That's it. That's why they are there. Of course to them, that is a legitimate struggle against occupation, and therefore seen as 'defensive'.
It is particularly cynical you saying "when the regions they operate in are being decimated by Israel". The reason these regions get "decimated" is exactly because Hamas and Hizballah attack Israel from there. Your view depends on two false premises:
a) You think Israel has some kind of interest in attacking Lebanon or Gaza at random, thereby (in your view) risking Israeli civilians. Finkelstein holds that this is so that America can "maintain military supremacy in the region". Naomi Klein claims that it is designed to help export Israeli military technology… These views are so incredibly nonsensical it is difficult to know where to begin. They require such a detached and otherworldly view of the situation. I'll put it this way – several ministers in the Israeli government live within rocket range (Ariel Sharon's own house was hit while he was prime minister). Do you think these people would risk their own families lives just to "export military technology"? Anyone who holds these views simply has no sense of reality, and of what Israel is actually like.
b) You seem to think Hamas or Hizballah are actually capable of "defending" anything. They in fact have almost no defensive capability when faced with the IDF. They are capable of inflciting casualties, but neither of them would be able to prevent the IDF from conquering either Lebanon or Gaza. Their only military affect is in attacking large parts of Israel constantly, and causing near collapse of civil life there. That is why they are such a threat. You simply assume that Israel's objective is to "attack Gaza", and so any point at which Israel stops "attacking" or withdraws, you claim that Hamas "defended Gaza"…
I don't see how you can establish whether i am indoctrinated at all. It is a very rickety assumption to make, and seems like blind mud throwing to me. I have quite a few Palestinian, Lebanse, Iraqi, Iranian friends and so on, I've encountered many people with many different views, and were never educated according to any specific "doctrine". I also am not sure what you call "propeganda". I would call Al Jazeera and Finkelstein propaganda for example…
Matt,
Dershowitz has always been for a two state solution regarding the territories along the 242 resolution- thus your first statement is blatantly false and goes to show that you will openly falsify information to prove your point. The wall/fence is not illegal as you contend as stated by the supreme court in israel, and if you want to look at war crimes look at your colonialist past. Classic ad homenim attack to use the word war crimes.
The British caused the problems in the middle east by drawing country lines without a thought towards the future. The world says nothing about your other colonialist friend the french, and their role in the rwandan genocide. Easiest way to divert attention from Britains role in Iraq, Afghanistan and all their colonies around the world.
Long live the Queen
Boycott Israel but not Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria or any other Arab government. Makes sense. After all, a state which allows Arabs to vote and is 20% Arab is far worse than the states that drove out all non-Arabs and accuses any Jew who sets foot in their country of being a spy. Boycotting Israel also makes sense since it conjures up images of the Jewish boycott in Germany in the 1930s. But we shouldn't be sensitive to that, of course. People need to get over their hang ups about being annihilated, right? And of course, let's not mention the fact that countries like Syria and Jordan have killed far more Arabs than the supposedly "racist" Israel. But nobody said boo about those massacres.
And the word "Zionist" has become meaningless. I suppose if anybody defends India they're all of a sudden an "Indian nationalist", even if they're not Indian. It makes no sense.
Hear, hear, BOB and BCK.
It's easy.
If you separate Israel from the entire middle east,
subjugate it to higher standards than any of it's neighbors,
make lies ignoring the presence of jews in pre-ottoman palestine, ottoman palestine and the british mandate,
Characterize a whole nation by the actions of religious zionist, while at the same time ignore the democratically elected leaders on the other side (Hamas),
Focus all your attention on a country of 6 million so it appears as your number one topic in the blog,
Use the word "Zionist" to characterize any jew that has done a misdeed (independent of the fact of whether or not they are Zionists)(as appears in many leftist blogs – example angryarab.blog)
Then it is quite easy to make the case that Israel is evil incarnate. Personally though, to me, if you follow the steps above you're nothing more than a bigot, which makes you the evil one.