The Rise of Anti Semitism

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Actually, I do have evidence, but it involves getting transcripts or video from RTE. The other evidence comes in the form of articles written by various journalists (and politicians) down the years that agree with me.

Could you even allude to which particular news events we are talking about?

remember - if they are only about Israel and Palestine, then you're not showing anti-Semitism, but rather anti-Israelism.

jc

Memnoch

I'm really sick of Israel using the holocaust as an excuse for their actions in the present day. Everytime Israel does something morally reprehensible and gets any flak for it, they immediately label everyone as "anti-semsists" and "this anti-semitism" has got to stop. Really this is taking it too far. Its like the U.S. using 9/11 as an excuse to invade India next or something stupid like that.

A great example of this was the poll, in which most Europeans felt that Israel was the number 1 threat to world security. Immediately the backlash followed, "Europeans should not be anti-semetic", "after the suffering that the jew's have gone through in the holocaust, this is the attitude of europe?" etc etc etc.

This kind of lame emotional blackmail has got to stop, its lost its flavor long ago. Using the holocaust as a political tool to try and commit attrocities today only cheapens the suffering of those involved, and demeans them greatly.

"Let them go their dead and gone, their with O'Leary in the grave"

(okay so i know i altered a Yeat's quote, but couldn't really think of anything more appropriate)

Patrick Bateman

Interesting post, Memnoch.

I see no reason why I should not be anti-Semitic.

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by ReefBreak
The RTE TV and Radio news editors are well known (for a long time) to be quite left-wing, and slightly sympathetic to various left-wing causes such as the IRA, and Palestine.

I don't know about that, it's only recently that the censorship of Sinn Fein on RTE under Section 31 was lifted after 20 years or so. Even advertisements on a book of short stories by Gerry Adams was banned. When the ban was overturned, many within RTE fought tooth and nail to stop it.

So to say that the RTE is sympathetic to Sinn Fein is ridiculous.

halkar

Woody, after reading your comments about Quran and Muslims and Islam in general in several threads. I would like you to ask your christian and jew family members that what did muslims do to christians and jews of Jerusalem and Israel (whatever it was called those days) and what did crusaders do to Muslims and Jews when they entered the city. If they can't answer google around. And while you are googling look for the Spanish Inquisition and who open their arms to the jews of Spain.

What is going on in Israel is not about Muslims and Jews, it is the political idiots that's using religion as excuse on both sides. I have nothing against Israel, jews and muslims. It was not Muslims that started the 1st and 2nd WW. It was not Muslims that killed millions of natives in north and south America, Africa, India, Australia, it was not muslims caused holocoust. If you go back to your history books you will not see many of the events that change the world that was caused by Muslims.

Badgers

Reminds me of the line in Sex and the City where one of the characters (jewish) mentions the holocaust in the middle of an arguement with his girlfriend and she suddenly shuts up. He asks her why she's gone quiet and she says she can't argue anymore, since he's mentioned the holocaust!

Sadly that's true in some cases, some jewish people immediately throw up the holocaust/anti-semitism arguement where criticism of Israel is concerned.

Speaking as an Irish person who grew up never knowing a Jewish person (at least I don't think I knew one, maybe I did) I have never felt any particular like or dislike for them as a race....I treat people as I meet people and religion is not important to me.

However, if I have an opinion on Israel and if it somehow offends Jewish people and they decide to scream anti-semite at me simply cause of that view....well it would seem to me to be the best way to actually produce anti-semitism in someone who previously wouldn't have cared.


And anyway...what rise in anti-semitism? Pogroms...holocaust....I think it's a relatively quiet period

arcadegame2004

Yet again anyone who criticises Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is labelled a genocidal, Holocaust-denying, anti-semite. Nonsense.

Woody, I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Sharon. He was forced to resign from his own government in tjhe early 1980's having been found to have been indirectly responsible for the Sabra and Shatilla massacres of thousands of people, including many innocent babies ( or do you think they are terrorists too?) and women. On the peace-process, he says one thing and does another. One minute he's promising grand gestures and "painful sacrifices", the next hes sending in the bulldozers to destroy Palestinian homes, or tanks and IDF soldiers who shoot 14 year old children in the name of the "fight against Palestinian terrorism". Alright, so some of those the IDF kill are Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Hizbollah/Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade members. But tell me this: Would Britain have been justified in the 30 years of IRA bombings in their country, in bombing Dublin and killing scores of people on the offchance that one of them might have been a terrorist? I think not.

What is horrifying me is the total absence of due process in Israel's methods. Instead of arresting suspects and trying them, they simply carry out extra-judicial killings of those they claim to be terrorists. Granted, some of those killed are terrorists. But nearly always, the majority of those killed in such targeted assassinations are innocent bystanders who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unless Sharon stops this clumsy behaviour, he will continue to stoke the flames of rebellion and terrorism in the occupied-territories.

The Palestinian Authority are also partly to blame for all this. They refuse or are unable to rein in Hamas. But even when they have arranged short-term Hamas truces, through dialogue with that grouping, Sharon always finds a way to lure them back to violence by sending in the IDF with their bulldozers and tanks to demolish more Arab homes under the pretext of "defeating terror". If the UK had behaved this way in NI then there would never have been relative peace there! I mean, the thought of London sending bulldozers into Catholic areas of Belfast and carrying out air-strikes on a street SOME of whose residents/people happening to be there MAY have been IRA members would truly make my blood boil to 100 degrees Celsius!!!! So I can understand why Palestinians are furious at Israel.

No, I am not justifying the evil war-crimes of Hamas etc. and their blatent slaughter of civilians. I am simply pointing out to you that whether we like it or not, history works like physics in that for every action there tends to be an at least an equal reaction (or sometimes unequal). The number of Israeli's killed by Palestinian suicide bombers stands around 600, compared to at least 1,500 Palestinians. That proves that Israel's reactions are disproportionate. Both sides are at fault, but it's worth remembering that Muslim terrorism against the West was almost unheard of prior to the start of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. If Israel wants to improve its international public image it must end its gunboat diplomacy and make genuine attempts to reach out to the Palestinians. This must include and end to the boycott of talks with Arafat. The Palestinians will not allow Israel to dictate to them who should be there leader. They elected him remember? It would be like the Palestinians demanding to choose the Israeli leader. And don't seriously expect me to believe that Israelis would accept that! Their enemy choosing their leader? We Irish would not have accepted that in the Treaty negotiations.

monument

Originally posted by ReefBreak
I was referring to the editorial slant that a news station takes over a period of time. For example, you may not realise from a first read of the Sunday Tribune that it takes a slightly left-wing view, but you would over a period of time. Similarly with RTE. However, sometimes the slant just sticks out like a sore thumb, such as Richard Downes report from the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the Yassin killing.

[Edit]...or Tommy Gorman's report from Stormont after the RUC raided Sinn Féin offices in the aftermath of the Stormont Spy Ring affair. Crikey, the guy was practically in tears for the plight of SF.

You'll love Sky's Ireland news channel, while you wait find some way to watching Fox News, have a look at their websites.... http://www.foxnews.com/

BTW I’m not trying to take the piss or anything, just suggesting media outlets you might like based on your posts.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Redleslie

Originally posted by daveirl
No your off the mark, what I and Reefbreak have said is that RTE is biased, we're not saying we're looking for the opposite bias, we are looking for unbiased reporting.

If the BBC can do it RTE can.

BBC accused of bias against Israel.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Redleslie
BBC accused of bias against Israel.

BBC accused of bias against Israel - Guardian Unlimited - April 1, 2004 (assuming it is not a april fool joke)
The Israeli government has written to the BBC accusing its Middle East correspondent, Orla Guerin, of anti-semitism and "total identification with the goals and methods of the Palestinian terror groups..

..She [Guerin] described how the army "paraded the child in front of the international media", and observed that journalists had been prevented from asking him questions and therefore were left only with the army's account of the arrest...

...Mr Sharansky alleged that the BBC reporter "cast aspersions on the meaning of what transpired" that amounted to "such a gross double standard to the Jewish state, it is difficult to see Ms Guerin's report as anything but anti-semitic"....

...The Tel Aviv press has called for the expulsion of correspondents from Sky, the Times and several French papers for failing to cover a story the government mobilised embassies worldwide to get into the media last month...

... Israeli embassies called news editors to insist they cover the story and warn that failure to do so would be viewed as bias against Israel. When several news organisations failed to report it, an Israeli newspaper called for their correspondents to be expelled, including Sky's Emma Hurd and Stephen Farrell of the Times....

Seems like when you don't cover a report the way the Israeli government want you to cover it you are considered not only biased against Israel but also anti-semetic

Kaner

Having lived in Israel, and I would not call myself pro or anti-Israeli, but I could see the roots of the current crisis 15 years ago. It is quite similar to Norther Ireland. The Israelis are like the Loyalist planters who would not allow the locals to integrate into their society, or if they did allow them to integrate it was on a exploitative basis. This was really dumb because the Palastinians could have been integrated if the Israelis had made the effort.

Unfortunately Israeli extremists like Sharon are calling the shots now, and unwittingly exposing Israel to long term danger, like eventually getting the Americans pissed off at them.

That being said I also blame the surrounding countires for inciting the Palastinains to attack the Jews. These countries have made a scapegoat out of Israel to deflect attention away from the miserable way these countries are governed.

But ultimately I blame the Germans for the current situation. 60 years ago they tried to all Jews in Europe, just because they were Jews.

So then the Jews went to Palastine bought land and set up their own quasi-country - quite understandable if you ask me.

Unfortunately friction develops between the Jews and the locals, which leads to a war, which leads to another war and so on. The surrounding countries try to annihilate the Jews, but the Jews are not lying down and taking it anymore. These Israeli Jews become fairly paranoid and there are is a lot of sympathy for extremists.
The more Israel is threatened the more power the Israeli extremists gain. Sharon is a perfect example.

halkar

Kaner, it is Israel that threatens the region not otherwise. They are the ones developing nukes and ignoring rest of the world. If Israel can build its arsenal thinking it is threatened by surrounding countries, I don't see any reason why other countries can not do the same but you can see what happens if they try. Iraq, Iran etc. Immediately sanctions put in place and their activities get monitored by UN. Why doesn't Israel allow UN to inspect their capabilities of nukes and wmd they might have? If they have nothing to hide, shouldn't be problem for UN to inspect and find out if they are really a peacefull nation. No country will feel confortable while Israel keeps its nuclear activity going. If US can invade Iraq with excuses of WMDs why not invade Israel too? They are clearly a threat to Middle East with their attitude. Even Libya and Iran opened its facilities to inspections and I think Israel should start showing some effort to start integrating with the rest of the world and start taking positive actions. Instead of hiding behind curtains start making some real efforts for the peace in the region. I blame rest of the world for allowing them to get away with so much that many countries wouldn't have get away for long.

monument

Originally posted by daveirl
No your off the mark, what I and Reefbreak have said is that RTE is biased, we're not saying we're looking for the opposite bias, we are looking for unbiased reporting.

If the BBC can do it RTE can.

Originally posted by Reefbreak
I was referring to the editorial slant that a news station takes over a period of time. For example, you may not realise from a first read of the Sunday Tribune that it takes a slightly left-wing view, but you would over a period of time. Similarly with RTE. However, sometimes the slant just sticks out like a sore thumb, such as Richard Downes report from the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the Yassin killing.

Have a look at what Wicknight has said above.

Anyway, the BBC is seen by many of having a left wing agenda.

(and since an article was posted above I might as well point out – even if it’s apparent to any one who reads it - the Guardian is very open about leaning left)

shotamoose

BBC accused of anti-semitism, eh?

Interesting, then, that in all the flap on this thread about bias in news organisation, the only story posted that's actually about anti-semitism is this one, entitled 'Anti-semitism 'on the rise in Europe'' from, er, the BBC.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that by their words and actions, the group of people doing the most to promote anti-semitism in Europe is the Israeli government. Sure there's lots of crackpots out there churning out anti-semitic propaganda, but they're crackpots. The Israeli government is the one that seems to be trying to create a 'Jewish state' built on violence and oppression. If the government was a dictorship, there'd be more sympathy for ordinary Israelis. The fact that they've democratically elected these bastards sort of undermines that.

sovtek

Originally posted by Kaner
Unfortunately Israeli extremists like Sharon are calling the shots now, and unwittingly exposing Israel to long term danger, like eventually getting the Americans pissed off at them.

Zionist in Israel have been calling the shots since it's inception.

That being said I also blame the surrounding countires for inciting the Palastinains to attack the Jews. These countries have made a scapegoat out of Israel to deflect attention away from the miserable way these countries are governed.

I guess they might have incited that but then Israel has attacked it's neighbors on a consitant basis since it's foundation.

But ultimately I blame the Germans for the current situation. 60 years ago they tried to all Jews in Europe, just because they were Jews.

So that's an excuse for taking someone's land in a country your not from?

So then the Jews went to Palastine bought land and set up their own quasi-country - quite understandable if you ask me.

Except that they didn't just buy the land did they?

Unfortunately friction develops between the Jews and the locals, which leads to a war, which leads to another war and so on.

That tends to happen when you invade a foreign country, take the land and expell the inhabitants.

The surrounding countries try to annihilate the Jews,

No the surrounding countries defended themselves from invasion and unprovoked attack and to push back an aggressive invasion force into the borders mandated by UN agreement.

Wrestlemania

Sovtek I have noticed some of your facts are wrong in your last Post:

1. Israel, was a stated brought about by the UN and is a Soveriegn State.

2. Israel, was attacked in every war. Where you got your facts I dunno maybe the back of a cornflakes box.....but Israel was attacked in every war and gladly the Repelled all the attacks.

3. "Zionist" Israel a term you use, mmm let me see Israel is not soley Jewish but you think so, it is made up of Quite a lot of Christians,Muslims, Buddists etc....So a generalised term I think is incorrect...And No they have not being calling the shots but hey if you say it, it then must be right.

4. The Land in Israel and Judea and Sameria (The West Bank to you all) if Real Israel believe it ot believe it not...The Jew or Zionist's as you like to call them have been there long before the "Palenstinians" which is a loose term for a collection of people from different Arab states...Sure Yasser is'nt even from there... The land the settlers are on is actually there's read your bible it will tell you that.

5. The Nazi's not the Germans Annihilated the Jews and yes they have total justification for going to there homeland, they wanted to peacefully co-exsist but alas there Arab neighbours did not.

6. Israel is the promised land to the Jews and it is not a Foriegn Country and inhabitants were not expelled...Again your facts are flawd.... Remember Israel is no bigger than Munster yet the Arab World wants to destroy it....MMM sick I think and evil....

7. When you get correct facts and not facts that maybe you have been brainwashed with your Pro-Arab and left wing peace activist rubbish come back as to be honest, even a person who supported neither side and was totally imparital would say you are incorrect and mislead...

I await for the barrage of insults as ever on this explosive topic but soon I am going back to Israel and will be around people of Like minds...


Just to conclude a CNN report on Saturday evening between 2100 and 2200 did a report about the wall around the West Bank and concluded it was both necessary as the People inside it did not denounce Terrorism and it was in there hands if it were to be taken down and to live in peace...

Basically no more suicide bombs a peace agreement = No Walls and the majority of settlers being moved out...

Peace is in the hands of the Palestinians and the war could be over tomorrow and lead to peaceful co-exsistence and a econimcally and stable soverign PA State..

Israelis want peace but as long as the "Extremists" are still there and people from the anti-zionist world community are there..There will be never peace....

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
3. "Zionist" Israel a term you use, mmm let me see Israel is not soley Jewish but you think so, it is made up of Quite a lot of Christians,Muslims, Buddists etc....So a generalised term I think is incorrect...And No they have not being calling the shots but hey if you say it, it then must be right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to apply for citizenship of Israel, must on not be of the Jewish faith (even a convert), by law?

Wrestlemania

You can become an Israel citizen even as a Christian, call the Israeli embassy in Dublin...Most peole going there would be Jewish but you can goto Israel and then apply to the Interior ministry for citizenship or volunteer for the IDF , Border Police the Normal Police etc...
Typically you would be jewish but also Massionic Jews, ie...Christians with both Jewish and Christian Beliefs can also become citizens.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Typically you would be jewish but also Massionic Jews, ie...Christians with both Jewish and Christian Beliefs can also become citizens.

Are you saying that you ultimately still require some Jewish Beliefs then? Could an openly practicing Roman Catholic become a citizen with full rights?

Victor

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Sovtek I have noticed some of your facts are wrong in your last Post: 1. Israel, was a stated [sic] brought about by the UN and is a Soveriegn State.

I don't think he's disputing that.

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
2. Israel, was attacked in every war.

Hang on, nice word play, every beligerant tends to be attacked in war. Likewise, Arab countries were attacked in every war. More importantly, in 1956, 1967 and 1982, Israel attacked first. If you want equity, you have to come with clean hands.

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
3. "Zionist" Israel a term you use, mmm let me see Israel is not soley Jewish but you think so, it is made up of Quite a lot of Christians,Muslims, Buddists etc.

Actually, Zionists are a sub-set of mostly Jews, but their religion is largely unimportant to the point. Zionists and in particular strong to extreme Zionists hold a disproportionate amount of power in Israel.

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
4. ...The Jew or Zionist's as you like to call them have been there long before the "Palenstinians"

You mean their ancestors were there. "They" weren't.

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
which is a loose term for a collection of people from different Arab states...

One of which is Palestine. Would you say that "Israeli" is a loose term for a collection of people from different American states and former Russian Republics?

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Sure Yasser is'nt even from there...

So what, DeVelera was half Spanish and born in the States .....

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
The land the settlers are on is actually there's read your bible it will tell you that.

But which settler? Which settler owns which bit of land. In the absence of some sort of title, the settlers have no claim.

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
they wanted to peacefully co-exsist but alas there Arab neighbours did not.

Stern Gang?

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
as the People inside it did not denounce Terrorism

Genuine question. Which side is "inside"?

I note from Sharon's interview over the weekend that he considers assassination fair game. Isn't assassination and the threat thereof a form of terrorism?

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Israelis want peace

All too often it seems on their own terms only. The concept of "conflict resolution" and "restraint" seem to bypass many in the Israeli government.

halkar

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
..
6. Israel is the promised land to the Jews and it is not a Foriegn Country and inhabitants were not expelled...Again your facts are flawd.... Remember Israel is no bigger than Munster yet the Arab World wants to destroy it....MMM sick I think and evil....
..

This is what I get to hear a lot about Israel. Promised what? who did? All because you beleive the land was promised to you some 2000 or so years ago doesn't give you right to be there , regardless of where you are from. World has changed since that was promised to you. I respect your beleives but this just doesn't justify occupy the lands that are not given to you. Arab world doesn't want to destroy, if they did they would have done so many centuries ago.
I am repeating myself, Israel is a threat to the region unless it is put under strict controls of UN like other nations there. They are just digging their own graves in their so called promissed land me thinks.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by ReefBreak
The RTE TV and Radio news editors are well known (for a long time) to be quite left-wing, and slightly sympathetic to various left-wing causes such as the IRA, and Palestine. Sometimes you have to read between the lines (if you know what I mean) to see it however. Eoghan Harris, Kevin Myers, and a few others have written about the bias in RTE on numerous occasions in the past.

How old are you sonny? Seems to me you're a little short on perspective. Let an old man enlighten you.

It is true that there were many concerns expressed back in the 1980s about left-wing infiltration into and subversion of certain public bodies including RTE.

The ironic point about this, from the point of view of your post, was that this was largely associated with the organisation known variously as Sinn Fein Gardiner Place, Official Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein the Workers Party or just simply the Workers Party. Or the Stickies, as was their nickname throughout their various rebranding exercises.

Back in the 1980s there were many articles in publications such as Magill as well as the national press about how the Stickies had infiltrated many RTE programs and were influencing the style of reporting. SEveral people with Stickie links had senior editorial positions in RTE at the time.

In particular, there was criticism of RTE's craven attitude to the broadcasting restrictions on the IRA (the Provisionals) and its utter bias AGAINST the Republican movement. (Who were of course deadly rivals of the Stickies) They were not allowed interview Shinners at all for example, and whereas their British colleagues in the Beeb and UTV at least challenged their own government's similar restrictions by getting actors to speak the words that whoever had uttered, RTE reporters were in no doubt about letting us know whose side we were supposed to think the Devil was on.

You don't have to be a supporter of the Provos, and I never have been, to realise that biased reporting can obscure the basic truth about what is happening.

The ironic thing about this is that a leading light in the Stickies at the time, and indeed one of their chief media advisors, was none other than your cited friend Eoghan Harris, Loony Lefty Communist fellow traveller turned Neocon Nitwit.

The self righteous belligerence, the justification of violence where he sees fit, the overbearing presumptuousness is still the same, it's just his principles that have done an about face.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
I note from Sharon's interview over the weekend that he considers assassination fair game. Isn't assassination and the threat thereof a form of terrorism?

No, its not. Assassination is targetted. The Israeli's have - at most - voiced their intention to assassinate individuals.

That is not an attempt to sway the actions or decisions by instilling fear in the populace at large of a threat to themselves, and so is not terrorism.

Of course.....if the Palestinian's were to kill someone like Sharon, that too would not be terrorism, but would almost undoubtedly portrayed as such.

jc

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Ajnag
Is it not also true that there are ultra orthidox Jews who belive that the messiah can only return once greater isreal has been established ie Palistine has been destroyed, and do these people not hold places within the Knesset? close to the ruling likud party?

I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick there. I'm not Jewish so I can't claim to be authorative on this but I think you'll find that among the most ultra orthodox Jews are some who believe that the establishment of a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah is a blasphemy and for that reason they are opposed to the existence of Israel.

However they mostly live in Jerusalem (or New York) and hold Jordanian passports. They are rigid in their observation of Rabbinical Law especially regarding Sabbath observation and dietary regulations and are exempt from military service.

Separate from these people are ultra fanatical Zionists who followed the likes of the late Meir Kahane and his ilk but these vicious extremists should not be confused with ultra orthodox Jewry.

monument

Originally posted by bonkey
No, its not. Assassination is targetted. The Israeli's have - at most - voiced their intention to assassinate individuals.

That is not an attempt to sway the actions or decisions by instilling fear in the populace at large of a threat to themselves, and so is not terrorism.

Of course.....if the Palestinian's were to kill someone like Sharon, that too would not be terrorism, but would almost undoubtedly portrayed as such.

Assassination is normally aimed at a person of power - a leader, a person of high regard, or just a person with a voice which is listened to?

Ok, so when "Mr X" is assassinated how do you think the people who are in power around "Mr X", the people who listen to "Mr X", the people who voted for "Mr X", r who ever feel?

Is the aim of assassination not to make people think twice about doing/saying what "Mr X" was doing/saying?

In Ireland's recent history the voice was the press, "Mr X" was not a man, the result was however terror.

Anyways, I'm sure the dictionary will be changed to accommodate non-"terrorists" been able to commit acts of terror and not been able to then call them terrorists In the mean while can we start to label ever terrorists a terrorists? Or just stop labelling anyone such?

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
No, its not. Assassination is targetted. The Israeli's have - at most - voiced their intention to assassinate individuals.

One assassination fair enough, similarly with two, however to systematically target substantial portions of the Palestinian leadership? To say "we can and if we are so minded will kill anyone we want, even the democratically elected leader" is to put the entire populace in fear. Ambivalence is angry and aggressive, not passive.

Originally posted by bonkey
That is not an attempt to sway the actions or decisions by instilling fear in the populace at large of a threat to themselves, and so is not terrorism.

It may not be an "attempt", it is a fait accompli. It's saying to an entire populace "if you don't do (or abstain from doing) what we want, we will take action". While it may result in bravado in some, it puts all in fear.

Originally posted by bonkey
Of course.....if the Palestinian's were to kill someone like Sharon, that too would not be terrorism, but would almost undoubtedly portrayed as such.

Well, I suppose if you turn Sharon's words back on him yes, he would be inviting his fate.

However, while Sharon may like to play soldier, he is no longer one (he made General), he is an elected leader. While Palestinians have often confronted the Israeli military and indeed sometimes targeted buses and events with military personnel, all to often, in the absence of attackable military targets they have resorted to attacking civilian targets. This style of attack, together with a Sharon assassination, is terrorism, perhaps in someway understandable, but not excusable.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
One assassination fair enough, similarly with two, however to systematically target substantial portions of the Palestinian leadership?

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe such action would be or is in any way correct or justifiable...but I do not believe it constitutes terrorism.

OK - I admit there are more extreme interpretations regarding Israeli reasoning, but at the very simplest level, the Israeli's are targetting people who - in their eyes - have a connection to terrorism. They are, for lack of a better term, valid targets for military action.

To say "we can and if we are so minded will kill anyone we want, even the democratically elected leader" is to put the entire populace in fear.

I don't believe so. At least, I don't believe the aim is to put the entire populace in fear. It is to deal with the people who they see as being directly responsible at the highest level, and to send a message that the same awaits anyone who wishes to take a similar position.

This is no different to the US deciding to attack Saddam Hussein for humanitarian reasons, and indeed to attempt to kill him using cruise missiles whenever they had what they thought was a good shot at him.

The puspose in both situations is not to achieve an indirect goal through the use of terrorism. Ergo it is not terrorism. When Al Qaeda - or any other terrorist organisation - target innocent cilvians, with the express purpose of causing a reaction amongst the civilian populace which (in theory) will feed forward to co-erce the government.....that is terrorism.

Terror may indeed ensue from the Israeli actions, but
that does not make it terrorism.

It's saying to an entire populace "if you don't do (or abstain from doing) what we want, we will take action".

The death sentence in any nation which still has it could be construed in exactly the same manner : "Do what we say, or you die". Would you argue that this also constitutes terrorism of a people by its own government wherever it exists?

While it may result in bravado in some, it puts all in fear.

So does war of all forms, rampant criminal activity, forces of nature, and countless other things. Do these all qualify as terrorism as well? I think not.

Terrorism is defined by the intent as much as the action itself. I do not believe the Israeli intention is to cow the Palestinian people through this action, other to the same extent that the death penalty could be considered to do. They are saying : if you kill us, we will visit that back upon you in kind.

I may not agree with the means, such as the lack of trial, but I do not accept that such a motive constitutes terrorism.

jc

Johnny Versace

Originally posted by mr_angry
This is another classic example of a poster not being able to distinguish between the following two things:

• A Nazi-like irrational hatred of the Jewish people all over the world
• A criticism of a singular action, or number of actions by the Israeli government

They are two completely different things. If you can find me an example of the former on either this board, or in the European media, I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you. Until then, no chance.

Thank you. Exactly my thoughts.