Israeli Repression and the Language of Liars

[Ned]

Cyber, after 9/11, I believe that Europe has a better understanding of the United States position on a limited ABM capability. MAD has no utility against terrorist groups.

Regardless of the existence or degree of global warming, the draft Kyoto treaty was flawed. It essentially penalized United States and gave the Third World countries a free ride. At the time it was originally negotiated by Gore, the Senate voted 99-0 against the treaty. Bush was not alone in the United States in disagreeing with the treaty. Not signing was not stupidity, but prudence.

I believe Bush stated that he was signing the steel tariffs to "restore" trade balance. Was this incorrect? Regardless, what he did was not welcomed by a significant number of Republicans.

On the Middle East, the perceptions of the legalities and equities of Europe in America are entirely opposed. Europe clearly views the Israelis as the aggressor. American views the Palestinians as the aggressor. There is a growing view in that the United States that the basis for the different viewpoints is caused by European anti-Semitism. I don't necessarily agree with that view. I believe rather than source of the disagreement is exactly you said it was. Israel stronger than the Palestinians. That necessarily makes them the aggressor.

This extreme bias against the use of force even in self-defense is deeply rooted in leftism. No wonder the Dutch troops had no idea of what to do at Sebrencia.

[Natan]

That the printed version is different from the internet one is a feeble attempt to hide behind a wish. I don't know a single western paper where content changes...

I know it does for the Jerusalem Post, and I believe it does for other papers as well - unless The Guardian is in the habit of printing articles with four letter words and not just putting them on the internet where standards of decorum are looser. The heading on the Die Welt archive's says "Das Archiv der WELT online beinhaltet alle Artikel, die seit Mai 1995 in der Internetausgabe der WELT erschienen sind." (emphasis added) In fact, they also offer archives of their print edition (in PDF form) which seems like utter redundancy if you are correct.

Especially a story as high profile as that one would be.

Again, I disagree - I saw this same story on American cable news, but it didn't get a high profile. My personal guess is that the story appeared as something other than a regular news article (opinion piece, "magazine section," you know, non-news). After all, if the J'lem post story were a fabrication, there should have been a lawsuit by Die Welt. This is not the sort of thing which just gets made up; if they had wanted to fabricate a story they would have found unfalsifiable sources such as "security officials," "Lebanese sources" or some such.

Besides, this hardly proves the 20% figure of fabrication you invented, nor would discrediting the Jerusalem Post prove that all media besides the New York Times and the BBC are useless.

[CyberGnu]

Siro:

Martyrdom is existant not because of opression, but because the governmetn has made it so popular. Notice that prior to 1993 there were almost no such suicide bombers.

Why did they appear?
The palestinians only gained.
They gained self rule in many areas.
They gained their own leadership.
They gained their own government.

And so on and so forth.

Apparently you live in a dream world quite far removed t=from ours...

Have you considered seeking out a palestinian and ask him/her about the Oslo accords? Sure, while Israel gave the PA control over some aprts of the palestinian toerritory, Israel at the same time kept expanding the settlements, admitted that they never intended to give up any part of jerusalem, etc etc.

The suicide bombers have sprung up from a population feeling they have nothing left to lose... and if you don't want to understand even a simple fact such as that, there is no way you will ever be able to understand the conflict.

Of course, there still exist the possibility that you very well know why the suicide bombers sacrifice their lifes, but you have choosen to lie about their motives to justify your countryies atrocities... I'm not sure which possibility saddens me the most...

[CyberGnu]

Panang, what is up with the commas? they are driving me crazy. And I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Please try to write in coherent sentences.

[CyberGnu]

Siro, that still doesn't make 'security sources' a trustworthy data source. If what they claim is true, they should present evidence. that is how a democracy works.

And if, as you so often claim, the evidence can't be presented because of security concerns, put it to an international tribunal, or even a US investigation. But spurious claims are not worth more than mere propaganda.

[Natan]

The suicide bombers have sprung up from a population feeling they have nothing left to lose... and if you don't want to understand even a simple fact such as that, there is no way you will ever be able to understand the conflict.

That's absurd. Of course they have plenty to lose - most suicide bombers have jobs and families. Several were engaged to be married. One can bring many instances of those who truly did have nothing to lose who didn't resort to suicide bombings (Bosnian Muslims in the Yugoslav civil war, Kurds fighting the Baath regime in Iraq) and one can bring many examples of suicide bombers who had quite a bit to lose, like the 9/11 hijackers. The bombings are a military and political tactic, they exist because people who are willing to die for their cause are convinced that these are effective. Just because a person has a chance of living a decent life doesn't mean they are unwilling to die for a cause.

[CyberGnu]

Ned, I personally have a hard time deciding about this ABM thing. There are pros and cons, although I think the mainstream EU complaint is invalid. However, the missile defense is pretty much useless against terrorism anyway...

We can debate the Kyoto somewhere else. You seem to agree, however, that it is not a left-right issue.

Regarding the steel tariffs, the WTO judged the EU to be right, so you can judge for yourself...

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
And if, as you so often claim, the evidence can't be presented because of security concerns, put it to an international tribunal, or even a US investigation. But spurious claims are not worth more than mere propaganda.

Like the US presented its evidence of OBL's involvement in 9/11? Has any country ever done anything like this?

[CyberGnu]

There is a growing view in that the United States that the basis for the different viewpoints is caused by European anti-Semitism. I don't necessarily agree with that view.

I agree, although in a bit more forceful terms... Blaming EU policy on anti-semitism is just plain lying, and luckily has that wolf been called so many times that even europe has learned to ignore it.

I believe rather than source of the disagreement is exactly you said it was. Israel stronger than the Palestinians. That necessarily makes them the aggressor.

Ned, I jsut told you that I don't think Israel being stronger than the palestinians make them the aggressor, they just happen to be both. Completely independent of each other. Having no relationship. Disconnected facts.

I think your perception of things is scewed, however, by the selfcorrecting nature of a weaker aggressor... Only if the aggression remains are we forced to take a moral stance on it. Thus, extreme leftism usually consider Desert Storm as morally justified, even though the US was the stronger party by far. It is determined by who attacks who, not by who is stronger.

[CyberGnu]

Natan, fine, find the story for me in Die Welt. I couldn't. I also wrote two emails to the editor of the JP, but never received a reply.

I guess I should have qualified one of my previous sentences: I don't know of a single western media where news content is less on the website than in the printed paper. Electrons are cheap, paper isn't. Many papers add stuff on their website. Not the other way around, however.

[CyberGnu]

That's absurd. Of course they have plenty to lose - most suicide bombers have jobs and families. Several were engaged to be married. One can bring many instances of those who truly did have nothing to lose who didn't resort to suicide bombings (Bosnian Muslims in the Yugoslav civil war, Kurds fighting the Baath regime in Iraq) and one can bring many examples of suicide bombers who had quite a bit to lose, like the 9/11 hijackers. The bombings are a military and political tactic, they exist because people who are willing to die for their cause are convinced that these are effective. Just because a person has a chance of living a decent life doesn't mean they are unwilling to die for a cause.

What is life worth if you face the prospect of eking out an existance in a camp, depending on alms to sustain you until you die of old age?

What the death of Oslo did was to kill hope. People can endure enormous hardships if they think there is a light at the end of the tunnel. But whn that light is extinguished (in this case by Israel showing that they never intended the palestinians to have their own viable state), hope dies, and desperation sets in.

They tried uprising (intifada). They tried negotiating (oslo). What options do you think they see as being left?

[CyberGnu]

Like the US presented its evidence of OBL's involvement in 9/11? Has any country ever done anything like this?

You missed the videotape?

[CyberGnu]

Panang, just occured to me: Have you considered following your own advice and visit the occupied territories?

[Natan]

What is life worth if you face the prospect of eking out an existance in a camp, depending on alms to sustain you until you die of old age?

Millions of people around the world depend on alms for life, and many more starve, often in camps. For example, there are refugee camps all over the rift valley in Africa, refugee camps in various parts of Europe, and refugee camps in the Arab world for both Palestinians and others. Have you noticed a lot of riots, let alone suicide bombings, by Iraqis in refugee camps in Saudi Arabia? They have even less hope of achieving their goals than the Palestinians do.

What the death of Oslo did was to kill hope. People can endure enormous hardships if they think there is a light at the end of the tunnel. But whn that light is extinguished (in this case by Israel showing that they never intended the palestinians to have their own viable state), hope dies, and desperation sets in.

They tried uprising (intifada). They tried negotiating (oslo). What options do you think they see as being left?

Obviously if you view this as a situation in which the Palestinians have to get back all of the West Bank at all costs, then this makes sense. But you should specify that when you say they have lost hope, you don't mean hope of a better life, of better education or social services, of more freedom or economic prosperity, but rather hope of achieving specific political goals. But in that sense, all terrorism results from a loss of hope.

[Ned]

CyberGnu, IIRC, the reason Arafat walked out of Camp David was because he could not get the Israeli's to agree to a right of return of Palestinians to Israel, and another point, I don't remember exactly, about Jerusalem. I don't believe the settlments were a critical issue. Israel appeared to be willing to abandon most of them in exchange for peace.

If the above is correct, are you saying that Israel is the aggressor because they did not agree to these two points?