Welcome to Israel Rules!

Powered by WebAds

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Your response, Sir

Our friend, Gert, from across the Med. in Britain attempted to give a scathing retort to my post about Britain's impending demise. I say attempted, because the man failed miserably. Instead of giving a lengthy rebuttal to his claims of my "ranting, raving, and deliberate attempts to create bias where there exists none" (paraphrased) in his comment section, I decided, as he did, to post a thorough response here. Enjoy, and I do suggest reading his blog. It's an "interesting" point of view from a person not living in the midst of the action. It is also a great illustration of how post-modernism, post-Enlightenment, and moral-relatism will lead to Europe's destruction.

Yes, gert, talk about rants. Oh yeah, Richard, you're the one who thinks The Guardian is a unique newspaper when it comes to journalistic integrity. I guess since you personally attacked me, I have to answer your drivel (sp?), so let's go.

13% (let that be 200,000) is indeed a minority, the author got that right at least at first. I wonder what kind of results would be obtained with a survey amongst Israelis regarding thorny issues like "Arab transfer"?
Well, surveys have been taken, but I won't even bother to bring those up. In fact, the only proof I need to bring is the actual decisions made by the Israeli voters. The party which is for and suggested transfer, Herut, ran for Knesset in 2003 and 2006. They have not, to this day, received enough votes to enter the Parliament. That would mean that LESS than 2% of the voting population agrees with their position in order to even garner them ONE seat. I understand that your media likes to make out that more Israelis support the concept of "Arab transfer" than reality. But, the reality is there in black and white. Not even 2% of the Israeli public agrees with that notion. 2% as compared to 13%...? You do the math. Even if this weren't true, it's only a moral relativist that would compare wanting to "transfer" Arabs to wanting to call people who killed and maimed innocent civilians "martyrs" as being on the same moral playing field. How one justifies the other... maybe, you can explain that to me.

For the assertion that anti-Semitism "in Great Britain is on the rise, and anti-Semitism in Europe is at its highest level that it's been at since before WWII", not the slightest shred of evidence is presented. It's most likely the author confounds, possibly deliberately, criticism of some aspects of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism, thereby effectively downgrading a serious form of xenophobia: genuine anti-Semitism. Not in Jewish interests in my book...
Wow. How one can say that attacking synagogues and defaming graves and attacking Jews walking on the street and say that that's mere "anti-Zionism" is beyond me. It's funny how you can say that defending one's own citizens from countless rocket attacks on its soil is disproportionite use of force, and saying that it's a "wet dream" to think an end to Palestinian violence is a good first step to stopping what's currently going and then go on to say, with what I assume was a straight face, that anti-Zionism and anti-semitism don't coincide with one another. In 2002, The Economist asked whether anti-semitism was one the rise in Europe and concluded that it wasn't since there was no "discernible rise in anti-Jewish discrimination". The fact that The Economist, a well respected intelligent paper, was making this claim at the same time that synagogues were being vandalized across Europe in "anti-Israel" protest speaks to your dillusions in facing the problem. When Phil Reeves wrote his scathing article in The Independent, speaking about the atrocities committed against the Palestinians after the "Jenin massacre", the true light shown through. There are correct and incorrect methods of criticizing Israel's policies. Writing articles which chastize very practical and moral methods in which a country goes about defending its citizens (as you do in the article you have written after this one) and not include the context in which that defense came about goes far beyond being anti-Zionist and into the realm of anti-semitism. Beyond your journalists' out-right lying, and yours, about Israeli actions (your comment on the Gaza beach killing, which I will get to shortly), there has been the stark irrationality and hypocrisy of criticism. The very fact that you can sit in your relatively peaceful country and laud Israel's actions as "dispraportionate" is as hypocritical as they come. Israel has had to face, especially in the past 6 years, the most violent form of guerilla and terrorist warfare than any other country has had to face in its entire history. I assume that up until last July 7th, no typical British citizen ever had to worry that getting on a bus to simply go to work in the morning might end up causing them their last day on earth. The perverse double standards, particularly in the UN and its forums goes farther to show that anti-semitism is still very alive and rampant in the world, especially in Europe. Israel is singled out for chastizement and denounciation and is attacked again and again and again, while far worse culprits go unnoticed, or even worse, are welcomed into forums like the Humand Rights Commission, e.g. Saudia Arabia and Iran. So called anti-Zionists obsessively, still today, put Israel at the epicenter of the cause for Islamofascist terrorism around the world, particularly 9/11 and even the Bali bombings in which not one Israeli or Jew was killed. When you castigate Israel for its defense, you are castigating the Jewish State. You call yourself enlightened and, probably, an intellectual, but yet you still aim to claim that when syanagogues are burnt or vandalized, graves are defamed, throughout Europe, and when British Muslims scream out for the destruction of Israel, they are only doing so out of anti-Zionist tandecies, not out of anti-semitism. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Israel is held to standards that no other country is expected to hold to, like not defending its citizens from daily barrages of rocket attacks, that is anti-Semitism, not "merely" anti-Zionism. Further than that, anti-Zionism, by definition, means that you are against the Jewish people having the right, just like any other nation in the world, to have a sovereign state of their own and to subsequently defend that State's right to exist. That is anti-semitism. Calling it by another name would still spell the same thing.

The Muslim Council of Britain did not call for the abolition of Holocaust Memorial Day, they called for a general Holocaust Memorial Day, to include a number of other genocides around the world. Per se that is not such a bad idea
Again, how you do not see that as classic anti-semitism is beyond me, but then again, I am not a moral relativist. The Muslim Council stating that it's not necessary or warranted to have a unique Holocaust Day that commemorates the eradication of 6 million Jews is, in and of itself, anti-semitic. It is an attempt to down-grade to atrocity committed against the Jews, by the Nazis, and say that it is no different from any other atrocity or genocide that has occured in history. Not all atrocities are holocausts. There is a reason why the Jews have that unique "honor". No other people, the Rwandan and Algerian genocides come close, has experienced the systemic government sponsored extermination that the Jews did in World War 2. While another general day to commomorate other atrocities that have taken place around the world is a good idea in my book, the decision to "offer" the advice that a specific Holocaust day for the Jews needs to be abolished, and if you would have read the article I wrote on it, the newspaper I quoted does say that the Muslim Council found a day specifically dedicated to remembering the Jewish Holocaust as offensive to Jews. It also goes further by playing into the wide spread Arab/Muslim world, whereby the Holocaust's authenticity is being questioned by those in positions of high power, both in goverenmental and in religious positions. To say that this proposal in no way plays in to the bigger picture of rampant anti-semitism and Holocaust denial that is going on in the greater Arab/Muslim world is a sign that you have either an unwillingless to look at what is really happening in the world around you, or you are delluding yourself. In either case, you prove my point as to what is now occuring in the British and greated European world. On the other hand, perhaps, you want a general Holocaust day because you, along with other Britons, would like to forget Britain's role in promlegating the deaths of 6 million Jews.

perhaps Arab Israeli citizens do not enjoy the same rights as their Jewish counterparts?

British Muslims come from all walks of life and include doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, business people etc etc and make a valuable contribution to British society in just about every way. They, incidentally also, make very good friends...

I really would like to you to elaborate on what you're insinuating with your question. I never once said that all of British Muslim society is "evil". I also,like you, have Arab friends. I go to school with many of them. I live next door to many of them, and we get along just fine. Does that fact prove that there a whole lot more Arab/Palestinians that don't want to see me dead? Or, that even my Arab friends wouldn't mind it at all if my throat were slit, and they took over my home? Not at all. To say that just because there are plenty of "normal" "westernized" "enlightened" British Muslims, that there is no greater problem facing the British and European world from the greater Muslim community would, again, be a dellusion. Have you ever gone to the Muslim mosques in the Muslim communities and heard a weekly Friday sermon? Does the example you give represent the norm of British Muslim society? Or, are these Muslims who become doctors, lawyers, and your friend chastized or even threatened because they are fratrinizing with Western society? One could go so far as to say how wrong you are based on the communities that these kids, who blew themselves up, came out of. Many Palestinians who go to kill Israeli civilians and blow themselves are from wealthy upper class societies. Many of them were in college for adavanced degrees. You like to be all pluarlisitc with your statements, but you also give no proof that what you say actually means that there is no greater problem facing your society. The fact that you don't even address that other "suggestions", eliminating the Easter Bunny and Saint George as the patron Saint of England (because they may be offensive to Muslims) tells me more about how you and your entire society are delluding yourselves into believing a reality that simply does not exist. Hey, I didn't even address the riots in response to the Muhammed cartoons.

The issue of terrorism on British soil is a matter for the British State to solve, not for moderate Muslims. The latter may wish, voluntarily to contribute to the debate about radical Islam, but Mr Blair's "idea" basically boils down to pitting one part of our community against another part. Mr Blair has shown in the past to show an astonishing disregard for the principles of Civil Liberties, principles which took centuries of struggle to establish and for which Britain remains rather a shining light in the world (to paraphrase that famous phrase).

And it's a fact that certain of Britain's actions, in particular joining the Coalition of the Willing in the war against Iraq, has somewhat contributed to radicalisation of certain parts of the British Muslim community.

Intentionally or not, you have again proven my point that the British people are choosing to blame themselves and their own Western ideals for the radicalism that has "erupted" in their society. The reason I put erupted in quotation marks? Because that radicalism was there before Britain joined the Coolition in Iraq. It was there long before 9/11. It was just waiting for an excuse to explode. Do you actually believe that if Mr Blair decided to pull out every troop from Iraq, radicalism in Britain and in Europe would cease to exist? That is as naive as it is wrong. That is also a classic example of the appeasement mentality. This guy named Churchill once said that appeasers feed other people to the crocodiles in the hope that they will be full before they get to them. The fact that you think the British government, rather than those who participate and perpetuate the radicalism themselves, will be the ones to solve the problem and bring "peace in our time" is another symptom of a bigger problem and goes to point out what I said. You actually, almost verabtim, said what I wrote the British society as a whole is pontificating.

As regards the British media, the author lives in a fantasy land. The Guardian for example is entirely correct in refusing to correct its headline. Narratives of the Gaza beach deaths are now so contradictory on both sides of the divide, that it is safe to say that those who don't have eyes and ears on the ground (that's the majority of us) are in no position to judge what actually happened that day. Only a truly independent inquiry may still shed light on the matter. The Guardian is therefore no more or less guilty than any other newspaper for sticking to its guns.

As regards the use of the word "kidnapping", "abduction", "captured" or "POW", this is nothing but semantics and doesn't in essence change the story except to those highly biased minds who are always the first to accuse anybody else of... bias.... It's also useful to remember that the Israelis have compared the BBC to the worst Nazi propaganda. Steady, boys...

Where do I begin with this one? All available evidence, including the evidence pulled out of the victims of those wounded in the accident, points to Israel NOT BEING AT FAULT for the killings. All evidence points to Palestinian lying and subterfuge. The very fact that The Guardian was ready and willing, like every other European newspaper, to blame Israel for those deaths simply on the word of Palestinian wittnesses, people that are natoriously known for lying about events, and not waiting for an official inquiry from the Israeli authorities shows incredible media bias. They did not use the words, "claim" or "refute" as they normally do when official Israeli institutions and officials speak. No, they believed the Palestinians at their word.

Tell me how an independent inquiry would go? Seeing that by independent inquiry, you mean the UN, how you feel they would be any less biased, based on their shiny record up until now when it comes to Israel I have no idea, carrying it out and finding out the "truth", I have to laugh my head off. Oh yeah, BBC's policy is not biased at all. How do you feel about the fact that they only reserve the word "terrorist" for Northern Ireland, but for every other country, they apply the term "militant"? If you want, I can give you dozens upon dozens examples of British media bias against Israel, but judging by your articles, they would just considered "symantic" differences.

As regards the use of the word "kidnapping", "abduction", "captured" or "POW", this is nothing but semantics and doesn't in essence change the story except to those highly biased minds who are always the first to accuse anybody else of... bias. That's a very interesting and ridiculous way of trying to "throw my own words back at me". Your very words denotes that fact that you have no conception of international law when it comes to taking soldiers prisoners (or when it comes to anything else, for that matter). There are extremely varrying legal ramifications between calling a soldier taken a "prisoner", "kidnapped", or a "POW". My dear friend, it is absolutely NOT symantics. When there has been no official declaration of war, a soldier taken captive can NOT be called a Prisoner of War. When war has been declared, being called a Prisoner of War carries with it many legal conditions. For instance, they cannot be tortured, starved, or not be given medical attention. Their lives can also NOT be threatened or bartered. The people holding the soldiers can NOT threaten to harm or kill a POW if the enemy does something they don't like. These are only a few of the rights affored to a Prisoner of War, including being seen to by the International Red Cross. This has, up to this writing, not happened. Committing these infractions is considered a War Crime at the worst, and mistreatement of a Prisoner of War at best. The Palestinians who are holding Gilad are violating these conditions, if he is a Prisoner of War. Israel, being the sovereign country in this case, has NOT declared war on Gaza and the Palestinian Authority, nor has the Palestinian Authority declared war on Israel. Therefore, you can NOT call Gilad a Prisoner of War. Since it is not a war between the two countries, then what happened to Shalit was a KIDNAPPING, and not anything else. I, personally, would prefer that he be declared a POW by the rules of international law for the reasons I pointed to above. But, alas, that's not in my hands to make. Nor, is it up to the BBC and the rest of British media to decide.

Only if you're completely ignorant as to how words effect people, then you would have to say that "playing symantics" means nothing. You would also have to have never taken a jouranlism class to say that the way an article is worded has no effect on the picture it paints in the readers' minds. If what you were saying is true, then the BBC should have no trouble intermingling or soley using the word "terrorist" in its reports. If it's only "symantics", what difference does it make which words you use to describe a person who indicriminately targets and kills civilians for political coersion? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, is that how it is?

My dear friend, I could go on and on as to how wrong you are, but there's no point. In your mind, there is no such thing as "truth". That's a dirty four letter word in your book. I have plenty of "spare ammunition" too, gert. If you really want to pull the wool over your eyes, that's fine, go ahead. But, don't come crawling to me when you have a number tatooed into your forehead and are paying a percentage of your income, in the jobs that you're allowed to get, to the dhimmi collectors. I see you voted for Chamberlin...

12 Comments:

At 12:47 PM, Blogger Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Whoa. What a post....

Good job!

 
At 1:53 PM, Blogger Olah Chadasha said...

Thanks, Jameel. I tried. It's really that I'm so sick of people, especially those from Britain and Europe, who think that they have some-how earned or have any sort of right to tell Israel how she can or cannot defend herself. Their hypocracy and double standards when it comes to Israel knows no bounds.
-OC

 
At 7:32 PM, Blogger Olah Chadasha said...

Oh, fyi, gert refuses to answer my comments and challenge. I guess he has nothing of substance or intelligence to say...
-OC

 
At 8:35 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Oh, well, now you're almost forcing me to respond, so I will. Not here, though and it might take another day or so.

Again you are simply twisting my words: I'm not "refusing" to answer your comments and challenge, I merely pointed out that it is of little use as we're very unlikely to actually agree on anything at all and would be wasting further time.

But then even useless things can be fun...

 
At 9:48 PM, Blogger Olah Chadasha said...

gert, then don't bother. I really couldn't care less, honestly. But, using the "we wouldn't agree so what's the point?" argument really says a lot. Who said that this had anything to do with agreeing with eachother? You think I could give one good damn whether or not you agree with anything I have to say? I answered your remarks simply because I felt that you were attacking not only my opinions but my character. Therefore, I was compelled to respond given that I believe it's my right to defend myself. If you want to respond, fine. If not, that's fine also. I value your opinions on this blog, but I couldn't care less whether we agree with eachother. I put out my point of view. You put out yours. Nothing you can say will sway me from the fact that your country is in a downward spiral of dhimmitude, and you are swimming in denial. It's not because I'm being obstenant, but because all available evidence points to you being wrong. One would think that your mind would be altered with the events that occurred last July. But, alas, time dulls the brain, and one forgets what actually happened. I see it going on in the US right now. It's not any different in your country. You want to go mano-a-mano, that's all well and good, but you must understand that we are probably not going to agree on a lot of things. If that's the reason you're writing, than why bother? You want me to become a puppet box for your opinions? I see where you're coming from with your views, and I think that you're just plain wrong. That doesn't mean I don't like to read what you have to say. Really, if your point is to get me to agree with you, please don't bother. it's not worth either one of our time.
-OC

 
At 7:15 PM, Blogger Gert said...

My point is not to get you to agree with me and you know that too. I'm not a converter: I'm a "moral relativist", remember? These usually don't make good preachers...

My point is that debating can lead to some understanding, even finding some common ground. It's not a prerequisite but in my case I've found rather a lot of common ground, often with Jewish people that are completely on the other side of the political divide over Israel.

I'm sure as an outsider I misunderstand or misinterpret some of the things that happen in Israel.

But as an insider in Britain, let me assure you that your views on British "Dhimmitude" are shared only by those on the fringes of political life. The majority of British Muslims stand squarely with the rest of British society, simply because they are an integral part of it...

Regards 7/7, no matter how serious this event was, Britain has suffered far, far worse bombings, including IRA terrorism in London. This is one of the reasons why most of us do not feel to need to overreact. Responses to radical Islamists in our country are far, far more intense than you seem to imagine though...

Your "Chamberlain" argument for example is extremely simplistic and basically you're comparing apples and oranges.

My risposte wasn't attacking your character, but it was probing your opinions. Don't take things so personal. That's very defensive.

 
At 11:05 PM, Blogger Olah Chadasha said...

I'm sorry, gert, but you DID attack my character by accusing me of bias or being paranoid, etc. When you made those remarks, I felt compelled to back up what I had said with even more evidence of why I think the way I do. If you really feel that about debating and such, then why did you make the "we're very unlikely to actually agree on anything at all and would be wasting further time." comment? If all you were interested in a good debate, then agreement wouldn't be an issue. You're contradicting yourself.

As per your feelings about Britain, you are correct and touche. I can't say what I said about your pontificating about Israel as a foreigner, and then not admit that I am a foreign observer on your end. In that, you are correct. However, like you, I will continue to voice my opinions in regards to the situation in Europe. The current attacks on my fellow Jews compells me to. But, I do AGREE with you that you have more of an inner perspective than I do when it comes to what's going on in your country. Is that good?
-OC

 
At 11:07 PM, Blogger Oleh Yahshan said...

Regards 7/7, no matter how serious this event was, Britain has suffered far, far worse bombings, including IRA terrorism in London.

Why do you state that the IRA are terrorists?? What makes what they wanted any different than what the Palestinians wanted??

After all I am sure I don't have to go into the History of NI, I am sure you know it better than I do. But in the end all they really wanted was either to join Ireland to the south, or at least have some sort of Power Sharing system.

But what I want to know is why what they did was terrorist attacks while what the Palestinians do is Militints fighting for "freedom" as you call it. ??

 
At 7:06 PM, Blogger Askinstoo said...

Hey! Very Nice! Check out this website I found where you can make extra cash.
It's not available everywhere, so go to the site and see if you can find something. I found something and make
and extra $900 a month!

http://www.degree-programs-online.info/extramoney.htm

 
At 1:29 PM, Blogger Behemoth101 said...

"While another general day to commomorate other atrocities that have taken place around the world is a good idea in my book, the decision to "offer" the advice that a specific Holocaust day for the Jews needs to be abolished, and if you would have read the article I wrote on it, the newspaper I quoted does say that the Muslim Council found a day specifically dedicated to remembering the Jewish Holocaust as offensive to Jews."

Have you ever taken the time to wonder about what Jews have used the Holocaust to justify? Imagine for a second if you were an Arab Muslim. You wouldn't like a specific holiday for The Holocaust either.

What do you say to someone trying his/her hardest to be culturally relativist and recognize that many different peoples at different times have experienced equally horrifying and even greater losses as/than the Jews?

Because it seems to me that you wouldn't have much to say, seeing as that you regard Jews as hierarchically superior; as if the Jewish plight trumps any conceivable horror this world could ever imagine.

What makes the Jewish Holocaust more important than the Russian Holocaust under Stalin? There were an estimated 20 times as many casualties in the latter. Is a Jew in the hand worth more than two in a babushka?

 
At 2:30 PM, Blogger Olah Chadasha said...

Are you actually going to say those things with a straight face?!? How ignorant are you??? What, pretail, please enlighten us, have the Jews used the Holocaust to justify? Please, I beg you. I am completely dull. Inform us of this information.

If you don't understand the uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust, than I really pity your complete lack of any sort of substantial eduation, period. The entire Muslim world is collectively, from top to bottom, displaying epidemic proportions of holocaust denial. The "request" that there not be a day to specifically remember the SYSTAMATIC EXTERMINATION of the Jewish people plays into that bigger goal. If you had even bothered to read the article, there is no mention from teh British Council that they want to get rid of the day because of any sort of Jewish "exploitation". They said that it was offensive to Muslims because there should be a day to remember the atrocities committed against them also, and that the Jewish holocaust was not so serious that it warrants its own day.

What do I say to some-one who is a cultural relativist? Well, to me, that would be equated to a moral-relativist? To them, I say that they have no moral code and that they're full of crap. There are such things as truth and universal morality, like the sanctity of life and other such Judeo-Christian values. I have NEVER ONCE said that Jews are "superior" to any other race. The very implication with no proof to back it up is as insulting as it is laughable. Only a liberal would throw that kind of dung at people and think it actually stinks.

Factually, there are certain aspects about the Jewish Holocaust that makes it uniquely different than any other genocide or holocaust ever committed in human kind. That, IN NO WAY, diminishes the suffering and atrocities committed against other people. To say so would be ridiculous. G-d, the very fact that I have to give a little Holocaust education to another Jew is extremely sad. Are you that ashamed of your Jewish heritige that much that you've never actually taken the time to learn anything about it except what you read in the press?

Some people would say that being Jewish is a special gift, but I guess you're not one of them. It just happened to be a blemish that you were born with.

OK, first of all, the number of casualties is not what makes a holocaust unique. It is the method in which it is carried out. Stalin indiscriminately killed over 60 million people. He starved the Ukrainians to death simply because he wanted their territory, and that was the best way to go about doing it. Millions of those that were killed by Stalin were JEWS. Did you not know that little fact? Or, are you trying to accuse me of saying that only the lives of the Jews that died in the holocaust are valued. I had family members who were killed, but their death was not the same as those Jews

Not every genocide can be classified as a holocaust. The Jewish Holocaust was the first state-sponsored genocide, in which the entire country colluded to commmit it, while a small minority abstained from taking part in it. It is the only genocide in history where a country actually diverted precious funds, resources, and man-power (during WAR TIME) to carry out systamatic extermination of a specific people. It is also the only holocaust where the perpetrators went out of their country, conquered others, and sought after the Jews of that country for the specidic purpose of eradicating them. It is the only holocaust in which the extermination was carried out in a sophisticated industrialized method. Or, would you like to point to another genocide in which ovens and gas chambers and large pits were used to slaughter thousands of people at once? Would you like me to go on?

Finally, the entire European world must have a holocaust day to remind them of their sins. Frankly, with what is going on there today in terms of anti-semitism just goes to show you that one day of reminder isn't good enough. You need to wake up out of your little cacoon or whatever bubble you've been living in and look at the facts of the real world.
-OC

 
At 9:00 PM, Blogger Behemoth101 said...

I can't believe you would hold up one death as being less meaningful than another... all untimely death is senseless - when will you learn?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home