Stifling criticism of Israeli policies

[DuctapeFatwa]

The outrageous threat voiced by Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that the Israeli government is considering the assassination of Palestinan National Authority President Yasser Arafat, all words of the democratically elected Palestinian president, have shockingly fallen on deaf ears....All US Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had to say on American television last Sunday was that the US "does not support either the elimination of (Arafat) or the exile" of the beleaguered Palestinian leader...

This timidity in criticising, if not condemning, Israel, the "only democracy in the Middle East", has long been a serious obstacle to reaching a fair solution for this decades-old conflict between Arabs and Israelis...

Ian Buruma, a Luce professor at Bard College who lives in Oxford and New York, says in his concluding paragraphs: "It is neither anti-Semitic nor blindly anti-American to point out that the US could have done much more to stop Israel from humiliating the Palestinians by turning the occupied territories into a kind of Wild East of gunslinging settlers and hounded natives."

He continued: "Religious fanaticism is confounding the politics of Israel, as well as that of its enemies. And its influence is felt in the US as well. Americans are right to support Israel's right to exist in peace, but criticism of Israeli policies should not be stifled by Christian visions of Armageddon, right-wing zealotry or memories of the culture wars in Brooklyn. This would not be good for America, and it is certainly not good for the Jews."...

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=97851

[Jim Sagle]

1. This thread ain't nuthin' but shit.

[Equinox]

5. Bunch of anti-israelers

(sarcasm)

:eyes:

[Jackie97]

12. Jim, do you have anything useful to say?

If so, then say it. It's normally welcomed if one has something useful to say. It's normally not welcomed to say that a post is nothing but shit without explaining why.

[quilp]

17. It is for Jim_Sagle. Like Likudniks he doesn't have to explain anything.

n/t

[Flying_Pig]

2. This thread is excellent, and Jim Sagle's post is ...

"nuthin' but shit".

[drewb]

3. btt

btt

[rini]

4. Let me tell you what's shockingly fallen on deaf ears....

the cries of Israeli children being murdered in their beds, or roasted to death (bring back memories) in burning busses.

But there are no deaf ears when it comes to the Egyption weasel's plans for peace. Why? Because there are none!

Culture wars in Brooklyn? Are these idiots now anti African-American. Brooklyn is (except for pockets) predominantly African-American now. And as for paternalistic, threatening statements such as "This would not be good for America, and it is certainly not good for the Jews."... who the hell are these people you have quoted to make not so veiled threats against the United States, and American citizens?

Let me tell you something Mr. A.H., DO NOT THREATEN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS CITIZENS, through foreign rags, or inuendo. The song United We Stand is more than just a union sing-along.

[Equinox]

6. You just don't get it, Rini,

So sad.

[rini]

7. the problem is

I do get it.

[drewb]

16. No you don't...

I really don't think you get it.

[Fight_n_back]

13. Thank you for explaining it though

calling people "pro likud" is just a the palestians attempt to stifle debate about Arafat's corruption.

[dai]

8. what in the...

Did you read the article?

This would not be good for America, and it is certainly not good for the Jews."... who the hell are these people you have quoted to make not so veiled threats against the United States, and American citizens?

This is not a threat. The author is quoting an American/British professor from a British editorial in order to contrast British and American publications and the degree to which they will criticize Israel.

Unless you are trying to claim that the British are threatening America, I think you have really misread the article.

[rini]

9. ok

the next time you hear "if you know what's good for you" or "let me make you an offer you can't refuse," take it as simple rhetoric.

[bemildred]

10. I usually take it as the time to leave the car dealership.

Maybe I should worry more.

[Jackie97]

15. Let's put it another way.

If you went to a cop and used those words by somebody else as proof that this person was threatening you, do you think that the cops would take you seriously? In any case, that's not the same as "If you know what's good for you". "If you know what's good for you" does come off hostile to some people (although that can't be proven to be a threat). However, the idea of "what's good for America and the Jews" simply is being used to talk about the best interests of people. You may disagree with it and give reasons why if you want to, but it's not okay to falsely accuse somebody of threats.

[Jackie97]

11. Give me a break.

"the cries of Israeli children being murdered in their beds, or roasted to death (bring back memories) in burning busses."

Roasted in their beds? When did this happen? In any case, the deaths of Israeli children did not fall on deaf ears. It's just that the ears of the people of the world heard other cries as well, the cries of Palestinian children. What is wrong with hearing the cries of both Isreali and Palestinian children?

"And as for paternalistic, threatening statements such as "This would not be good for America, and it is certainly not good for the Jews."... who the hell are these people you have quoted to make not so veiled threats against the United States, and American citizens?"

That was not a threat against the United States or its citizens. Saying that something isn't good for the Amerians or the Jews is only something wouldn't be good for them. It's not a threat.

In any case, put it in its context.

"He continued: 'Religious fanaticism is confounding the politics of Israel, as well as that of its enemies. And its influence is felt in the US as well. Americans are right to support Israel's right to exist in peace, but criticism of Israeli policies should not be stifled by Christian visions of Armageddon, right-wing zealotry or memories of the culture wars in Brooklyn. This would not be good for America, and it is certainly not good for the Jews.'"

He actually stated that Israel had a right to exist in peace, and that Americans were in the right to support it. All he was saying was that it hurts the United States and Jews to allow certain ideas to get in the way of criticism of Israel from being listened to. In other words, it doesn't serve the best interests of the Jews or the Americans. That's all he's saying. It's not a threat.

"Let me tell you something Mr. A.H., DO NOT THREATEN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS CITIZENS, through foreign rags, or inuendo. The song United We Stand is more than just a union sing-along."

There was no threat made to the United States or its citizens, so why don't you save your innuendo, 'eh?

[Equinox]

14. BARK

"Let me tell you something Mr. A.H., DO NOT THREATEN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS CITIZENS, through foreign rags, or inuendo. The song United We Stand is more than just a union sing-along."


BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK

[quilp]

18. Why is "Israel the only democracy in the Middle East"?

It is because the USA supported democracy for the Israelis while systematically destroying democracy for the Arabs.

[Jackie97]

19. Don't forget another thing.

Jordan also has freedom.

[quilp]

20. I guess they have no oil.

n/t

[Darranar]

21. And they're puppets for the US...

who needs to remove puppets?

[Fight_n_back]

22. Where is this stifling taking place?

Certainly the United Arab Emirites newspaper you quote from is critical of Israeli policies. Today in Haaretz there are at least two OP Eds criticizing Israeli policy. Who is being stifled?

P.S. What would your reaction be to Israel changing its name to "United Jewish Medievel Princes". Thats okay, Im sure the Emirs in the UAE are very liberal.