Once again the American press can't deal with sharp criticism of Israel. Here's a piece in the Washington Post by Julie Chaitin, an Israeli living in the Negev, who teaches social work. The headline is "Darkness in Qassam-Land."
This war is wrong. It is wrong because it cannot achieve its manifest
goals — long-term "normal" life for the residents of the Negev region.
The war is morally wrong because most of the victims are Palestinian
and Israeli civilians whose only "crime" is that they live in Negev or
Gaza. This war is wrong because it is not heading toward a viable
solution of the conflict but is instead creating more hatred and
greater determination on the part of both peoples to harm one another.
It is wrong because it is leading to stronger feelings that we have
nothing to lose by striking further, with greater force. This war is wrong because…
goals — long-term "normal" life for the residents of the Negev region.
The war is morally wrong because most of the victims are Palestinian
and Israeli civilians whose only "crime" is that they live in Negev or
Gaza. This war is wrong because it is not heading toward a viable
solution of the conflict but is instead creating more hatred and
greater determination on the part of both peoples to harm one another.
It is wrong because it is leading to stronger feelings that we have
nothing to lose by striking further, with greater force. This war is wrong because…
You're missing the lede! The MSM is printing a growing number of stories like this rejecting the talking points that Israel has no choice and the Gazans have only themselves to blame. So the editor chooses a headline not as strong as you would like: this is progress. Conflicting viewpoints are being given space. A lot of arguing of different viewpoints is necessary before the country coalesces around a new position. Let the debate be fully joined. Rejoice!
Huffington Post has no balls either when it comes to headlines. Timid. Lack in journalistic verity. Sad. You want to send their interns to take Reporting 101 at the J School uptown, if that's still the basic course.
If Obama punts again, perhaps that classic headline from the Jimmy Carter era will be resurrected –
MORE MUSH FROM THE WIMP
Then the cartoonists' caricatures will give Barry a man-purse, forcing him to spend more time in the gym …
"It is wrong because it is leading to stronger feelings that we have nothing to lose by striking further, with greater force. This war is wrong because…" the US government and its enabler, the Fourth Estate, will not even consider witholding a few of the huge bags of carrots reserved exclusively for Israeli munching.
Hard Ball is softball–more truthfully, nerfball.
Gatekeepers in the American media ensure that political Zionism is not questioned. The only debate allowed in pages of The New York Times or on major television broadcasts is between different brands and strategies of Zionism. On the other hand, we see literally millions of people in America and around the world, using the internet, reading between the lines, and questioning the Zionist narrative. We see thousands of Jews reach the same conclusion as Gilad Atzmon, the musican and writer, Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian, and Jeff Halper, an Israeli anthopologist: that political Zionism is the problem. They articulate an optimistic post-Zionist discourse based on universal justice and human rights. They and Phil essentially pose the question: If apartheid was the problem in South Africa, why is it a solution in Israel/Palestine? Only SOG (Bill
Pearlman), Witty, Steve R & the neocons who gave us the 8 year Iraq War and our very own congress who rubber-stampedit, all now cheering the shoot fest in Gaza and impending set up to
bomb Iran know.
Those who advocate political Zionism cannot defend it on its own merits so they focus instead on diverting attention and distorting reality. The best example of this is ignoring the cause of the disease and focusing attention to one of its many symptoms: violence of the natives against the colonial settlers (but not the vastly more deadly violence of the colonizers on native people). The idea is that if we vilify the natives and make them look subhuman, we will not be criticized for killing them and taking their lands.
This is an old strategy to justify the pillaging. It was used by the French government in Algeria, by European colonizers in the Americas, by apartheid South Africa, by the Americans in Vietnam, and in hundreds of other places were Western economic and colonial interests came in conflict with the rights of indigenous people.
'The idea is that if we vilify the natives and make them look subhuman, we will not be criticized for killing them and taking their lands.' — rabbi kook
Ronnie Gordon of the JPost is so down with that. Check out his lovely cartoon, picturing Arab women as animals (camels, rhinoceri, geese, etc.)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/DryBones&cid=1123495333180
Israel must be the last place on earth where a religious minority in the country can be mocked as subhuman savages.
For this we pay three billion a year?
It's not quite a man-purse, but British cartoonist Dave Brown is already pillaging Saint Barack as 'President Zippy' …
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00108/cartoon311208_108022a.jpg
YOU are opening the question of relevance of headlines?
YOU are opening the question of your relevance, Witty?
You sealed that ages ago by your regular talmudic comment pattern.
Richard Witty is hasbara first, American second. He makes that clear in every contribution to this forum.
I don't know what Hasbara is.
Again and again, Phil once consistently referred to the conflict as a "cycle of violence".
He's changed in that presentation.
A "cycle of violence" implies mutual responsibility to change.
If the result of this is a more confident long-term cease fire, including the opening of borders resulting from some basis of trust in each others' word, then it will be a good outcome.
If the result is that Hamas abandons its goal of opening the borders in favor of revenge and resumption of targeting civilians only, then it will be repetitive.
In the words of Fredy Perlman:
"The trick of declaring war against the armed resistance and then attacking the resisters’ unarmed kin as well as the surrounding population with the most gruesome products of Death-Science — this trick is not new. American Pioneers were pioneers in this too; they made it standard practice to declare war on indigenous warriors and then to murder and burn villages with only women and children in them. This is already modern war, what we know as war against civilian populations; it has also been called, more candidly, mass murder or genocide.
Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that the perpetrators of a Pogrom portray themselves as the victims, in the present case as victims of the Holocaust.
Herman Melville noticed over a century ago, in his analysis of the metaphysics of Indian-hating, that those who made a full-time profession of hunting and murdering indigenous people of this continent always made themselves appear, even in their own eyes, as the victims of manhunts."
From: ANTI-SEMITISM & THE BEIRUT POGROM – link to recollectionbooks.com
lol! Why don't you research what hasbara is, Hasbara Rich? Dan Fleshler uses the word in his most recent posts. Maybe you can ask him what it means.
Why do I get the feeling you're being totally disingenuous?
Oh, it's because when it comes to Israel, you always are! Of course!
And one more thing–Hamas "targeting civilians," which you keep parroting, is a joke. Those infamous glorified bottle rockets don't even have "targeting" devices, moron. Upwards of 90% of them land in the wastelands of the Negev.
Is there any Zionist propaganda that you don't try your damnedest to swallow and then disseminate, Hasbara Rich?
From Wikipedia –
While hasbara literally means "explanation", its exact import in its current usage is debated … Gary Rosenblatt describes it as "advocacy". Nathan Guttman has characterized hasbara as "pro-Israel propaganda," while Avi Hyman has said "while propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara
BINGO — Avi, please step up to the podium to accept your 'straight talk' award.
Witty: 'A week ago, I din't even know what hasbara was. Now I are one.'
But, sadly, not a very GOOD one.
YOU are opening the question of relevance of headlines?
Posted by: Richard Witty | January 01, 2009 at 09:19 AM
Your patronizing comments to Phil are truely sickening. I will try to ignore them from now on.
I sent a absolutely superfluous mail to Julie Chaitin inquiring about the headline. On afterthought the style of her mail suggests that she wrote to the WP and they simply printed her mail adding a headline. If this is true, Phil is correct and you as most of the time are wrong.
A week ago, I din't even know what hasbara was. Now I are one.
Why, whattya mean it sound like propaganda? Ah done rid it in th' New York Times!
Hasbara is a form of psychological warfare which accuses the enemy in graphic detail of committing all the atrocities one can imagine in one's own sick mind. For instance, it is often based on the subliminally implied claim that Palestinians drink the blood of Jews. You can see this coming whenever they say that Palestinians 'rejoice' in Jewish casulaties – unlike the holy Jews, who doubtless grieve devoutly after every bombing raid they undertake, with a heavy heart etc.