Israel in the Gaza Strip

[sneak'n]

Good article there.

Lenin's useful idiots analogy is apt here - the radical left.

What makes Hitchens' article "good"?
Hitchen misunderstands the notion of "left" and his inconsistencies of attribution are a disservice to good journalism.
It's a rather clumsily constructed piece and all Hitchens really succeeds in is exposing his significant and many biases.
Good journalism has a semblance of balance and honesty while telling a story that needs to be heard.
Worse, Hitchens prefers to rely on facts that just one side is offering up, and then embellishes them with unforgivable errors. For example, when the Israelis illegally boarded civilian vessels in international waters Hitchens can see no wrong in then asking the captured people who had no choice in being taken to Israel, to agree to deportation if they signed a declaration that they had entered the country illegally!
I can fully understand Mr L offering up Hitchens' article as it's about as good as his oft quoted elsewhere Lord Monckton might conjure.

 

[wayneL]

I can fully understand Mr L offering up Hitchens' article as it's about as good as his oft quoted elsewhere Lord Monckton might conjure.

In Rederob's zeal to fulfil some infantile grudge against me banning him for serial insults on this forum, he misinterprets my intentions and leaps to incorrect conclusions once again.

Pitiful.

 

[sneak'n]

In Rederob's zeal to fulfill some infantile grudge against me banning him for serial insults on this forum, he misinterprets my intentions and leaps to incorrect conclusions once again.

Pitiful.

Mr L, you remain short on facts. You claim it was a "well written" article. Was that from the perspective of prose, fiction, or journalism? Or, if there were elements worth deeper consideration, explain what they were so we can improve the thread.

Mr Pliskin, an apparent acolyte who I have yet to see has a clue about anything he posts, weighs in with an endorsement of it as being "good". Again, as in the climate threads, Mr Pliskin either does not wish to or is incapable of defending his words.

Rather than making everything personal, and apparently with some issues between you and Rederob, try dealing with the substance of the topic at hand.

Hitchens has clearly mastered guilt by association and, unfortunately for less critical readers, this sticks. Lord Monckton has similarly mastered a false truth by creating facts from thin air and presenting them as gospel.

Reading critically, Hitchens presents a potted history of the Gazan situation and then launches into the present relevance:

So in the midst of this confusion, we now find ourselves in a huge row over the alleged 'Aid Convoy' manned by alleged 'Humanitarians' which approached the Israeli coast at the weekend and was boarded by Israeli armed forces.

Like Monckton, Hitchens relies on his own version of reality to suggest "confusion". Rather, there is intricate complexity to many events that in historical chronicles are extremely detailed. An imperative is determining the perspective of writers to gain a semblance of balance as to what they present, and how.

Hitchens then "alleges" an Aid Convoy. Does he present evidence that the cargo is not aid? No, he instead indulged in a campaign of guilt by association.

Was the convoy approaching the Israeli coast, as Hitchens claims? No, it was heading towards Gaza.

Was the convoy "boarded" by armed forces. A moot and semantic point. It was an assault by armed forces on a civilian vessel in international waters that led to many people being killed and more wounded.

Although Hitchens declares his partisan stance, he also suggests his views present a counter to other biased reporting of the events. For example, he suggests the Turks would turn around a pro-Kurdish 'humanitarian convoy' . This is an insult to your intelligence if you understand the Kurdish situation vis-a-vis Palestinian. The Kurds are landlocked, and it's absurd to suggest anyone (let alone "humanitarians") would try to reach them by sea to deliver aid. Then again, you might like to go catch a flight to Erbil on Kurdistan Airlines to see their new international airport, and compare that experience with trying to enter Gaza.

Would you like me to go on and present more of an indictment of Hitchens' article, Mr L, or will you keep indulging in some mysterious personal battle that seems to affect your responses to me?

 

[wayneL]

Mr L, you remain short on facts. You claim it was a "well written" article. Was that from the perspective of prose, fiction, or journalism? Or, if there were elements worth deeper consideration, explain what they were so we can improve the thread.

Rederob,

Umm, I didn't present any "facts", just linked to an article. Was it a good article? What makes a good article?

A good article does not necessarily have to be the gospel, but creates alternative points of view for discussion, because no one person seems to have a grasp of every vector in this schmozzle. We see things through our own particular bias.

The fact that you are discussing the article (in between juvenile dick measuring) and raising good points is good and I thank you for your input, this was my intention.

What is disappointing for the thread is your infantile obsession with disparaging yours truly (and others). Please be assured that while I find it amusing, others find it annoying.

What is laughable and pathetic is your inference that you and Rederob are not the same person.

My strong advice is to stay on topic rederob and leave the puerile taunts out of the discussion.

 

[sneak'n]

While some may want to place what happened recently to the 'aid' convoy into political or legal contexts, there are also moral and ethical aspects to the matter. More simply put, from the perspective of a reasonable person, what constitutes the greater good? When thought about in this way it becomes irrelevant where the parties came from and allows us to set aside our biases.

So then, who is harmed if people who are deprived of many of the basics of living are to be provided some? In the greater scheme of things it is difficult to conceive this act as being a threat.

In a more detailed sense what could we conclude? There remains a view that some of what will be provided has the potential to be used in a threatening way. That is, some cement and steel are used to build fortifications.

To give credence to this latter view is to suggest that this source of 'aid' will be or become a significant contributor to its enemies. For that view to hold we need to assume there is no other meaningful avenue for Palestinians to gain materials that will support their efforts. In other words we need to put aside our knowledge of the enduring smuggling efforts at Rafah, where over 1000 tunnels bring in everything from cars to cigarettes.

We could go a step back and look at the morality of actions that led people to kill others on a ship. The moral defence has a few elements, such as in times of war soldiers will kill people, or that any person has the right to defend themselves.

No reasonable person can sustain that Israel had declared "war" on the convoy, so we should put aside any notion that soldiers were just following orders or doing their duty. That is not to say the convoy were not aware that the trip could get a bit rough. But there is a reasonable expectation that it would be unlikely anyone would get killed in the known circumstances.

That leaves self defence as a justification for killing. There needs to be exceptional circumstances to justify self-defence killings if one is an aggressor. Indeed, definitionally it is hard to conceive the civil concept of self-defence as pertaining to the perpetrator of a threatening act. On this point I welcome discussion that jeopardises the common understanding.

 

[gooner]

McGeogh said some of the Israeli soldiers were Australians. How does an Australian travel half way round the world to join an army that is notorious for its human rights abuses and war crimes? It is just to kill arabs?

Reminds me of all those stupid Australian muslims who head off to Afghanistan to joint the global jihad.

Let's hope none of them come back, as we do not want their hatreds here.

 

[Bobby]

Rederob,


What is laughable and pathetic is your inference that you and Rederob are not the same person.

.

Yep its rederob ' what a nightmare !~

Some extras = works as a public servant , has short stature with dark to medium skin tone , nature wasn't kind to his facial features it seems .

For any newer members information ( wayneL ) is the Man !!

 

[Macquack]

Yep its rederob ' what a nightmare !~

Some extras = works as a public servant , has short stature with dark to medium skin tone , nature wasn't kind to his facial features it seems .

What are you going on about??????

 

[disarray]

there are also moral and ethical aspects to the matter. More simply put, from the perspective of a reasonable person, what constitutes the greater good? When thought about in this way it becomes irrelevant where the parties came from and allows us to set aside our biases.

morals, ethics and "greater goods" are relative to the culture. for example, it is morally acceptable for a "reasonable person" in certain cultures / ideologies to practice polygamy, slavery, female genital mutilation, honour killings, execute homosexuals, hack bits off people as a form of punishment and demand everyone in the world convert / submit to their way of thinking or die.

so in the context of this argument you are correct in that we must examine morals and ethics. one one side we have the morals and ethics endorsed by islam, and the other we have morals and ethics endorsed by judaism.

imo the most important root cause in this entire conflict is the role of supremacist islamic ideology, however open discussion of islam is suppressed in the west under the guise of "hate speech". slag off christianity all you want though, hypocrisy is alive and well.

That leaves self defence as a justification for killing. There needs to be exceptional circumstances to justify self-defence killings if one is an aggressor. Indeed, definitionally it is hard to conceive the civil concept of self-defence as pertaining to the perpetrator of a threatening act. On this point I welcome discussion that jeopardises the common understanding.

well "aggressor" is pretty loose here. i've already posted links showing that the flotilla was organised by a terrorist organisation and carried members of terrorist groups who openly expressed a desire for martyrdom. i would consider these people to be "aggressive".

in addition the israelis repeatedly requested the convoy change course and unload at a different port to allow search of the cargo (not an unreasonable request) but the convoy was determined, and as shown by video, prepared to engage in a conflict with israeli defence forces.

 

[Macquack]

i've already posted links showing that the flotilla was organised by a terrorist organisation

Disarray posts a link to "credible" website - "Jihad Watch" so it must be the truth???

To show some balance, shall I post a link to "Jew Watch", I think not.

imo the most important root cause in this entire conflict is the role of supremacist islamic ideology, however open discussion of islam is suppressed in the west under the guise of "hate speech".

The same argument could read:-

imo the most important root cause in this entire conflict is the role of supremacist zionist ideology, however open discussion of judaism is suppressed in the west under the guise of "anti-semitism".

 

[disarray]

Disarray posts a link to "credible" website - "Jihad Watch" so it must be the truth???

actually it was yahoo news. so i take it you didn't even bother to click the link, let alone read it? between this and the insulting "a$$kissing jew lover" PM's you sent me i'm beginning to suspect you are, in fact, a retard.

imo the most important root cause in this entire conflict is the role of supremacist zionist ideology, however open discussion of judaism is suppressed in the west under the guise of "anti-semitism".

i don't disagree with this assessment, but to discuss the roles and weights of competing islamic / zionist ideologies and their impact upon the respective political policies will require a level of knowledge and civility i don't think you're capable of. just stick with the stormfront-esqe abusive PM's ok?

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

What makes Hitchens' article "good"?
Hitchen misunderstands the notion of "left" and his inconsistencies of attribution are a disservice to good journalism.
It's a rather clumsily constructed piece and all Hitchens really succeeds in is exposing his significant and many biases.
Good journalism has a semblance of balance and honesty while telling a story that needs to be heard.
Worse, Hitchens prefers to rely on facts that just one side is offering up, and then embellishes them with unforgivable errors. For example, when the Israelis illegally boarded civilian vessels in international waters Hitchens can see no wrong in then asking the captured people who had no choice in being taken to Israel, to agree to deportation if they signed a declaration that they had entered the country illegally!
I can fully understand Mr L offering up Hitchens' article as it's about as good as his oft quoted elsewhere Lord Monckton might conjure.

Now that I have time to post I'll answer your question.

It was my opinion that I thought it was good. Not sure why Monckton needs to be mentioned but I'll be brief so as not to invite more irrelevant stuff.

....a skill Israel has lost - it is in the disastrous position of having everyone know that its propaganda (and it works hard at it) *is* propaganda, its lobbying *is* lobbying etc, whereas Arab lobbying doesn't get noticed and its propaganda is reported as news, which is the real aim of all such operations.

I found this part informative.

If you like good journalism please feel free to show the type you believe is good.

 

[Macquack]

actually it was yahoo news. so i take it you didn't even bother to click the link, let alone read it?

Actually, it was a direct link to the "Jihad Watch" site (try it yourself)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/t...red-desire-for-islamic-martyrdom-another.html

So if you accidently linked to one of your "favorites" websites, it is your mistake not mine.

 

[DB008]

Found this.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Netanyahu needs to respect the U.N. Resolution and STOP expansion into occupied territory. Obey International law Netanyahu or go bash your head on the wailing wall. Set the borders and accept.

 

[luutzu]

Netanyahu needs to respect the U.N. Resolution and STOP expansion into occupied territory. Obey International law Netanyahu or go bash your head on the wailing wall. Set the borders and accept.

The UN are only for suckers. Them and when political theatre is needed.

Not sure why Obama decided to "abstain" from this vote. He's been a very good friend and ally to Israel, much more than Bush Jr. I mean, whenever they're asked to comment on Israeli new settlements, the answer is "it's not helpful" to peace; then hand over a few pallets of cash as downpayment for the construction. When the terrorists don't like their land being stolen and they're forced to live like animals, the Israeli defence force goes "mow the lawn" and Uncle Sam asks if they'd want to try new weapons to take out the topsoil too.

My take on the latest silent treatment is, one, the Yahu that's running Israel is too upfront about his love for Trump. Can't blame him since Trump is a colonist's wet dream. But you got to pay some respect and lip service to an administration that's been way too friendly to you the past 8 years. Can't be an azzhole like that.

Part of the reasons why Bibi Yahu is slapping Obama a bit is, well... he's a racist and what self-respecting King of the Chosen People want to kiss the ring of a black guy; but on a political level the Israeli don't like the one condition Obama attached to his recent $40billion over 10 years military aid to Israel: All the aids have to be spent on US-made weapons.

Israeli economist, Scher Hever [?] said at the time that the US historically allow about 10 to 15% of the billions to be spent purchasing Israeli made weapon systems. So it's been great for the Israeli military/security/lawn mowing industrial complex. But with Obama, probably with the urging of northrop and co., now want all that welfare cheques to be cashed in at more responsible retailers... so that kinda upset a few Israeli billionaires.

so Bibi's Israel is feeling abandoned and all that at the UN.

 

[frugal.rock]

It's been quiet for a while....

 

[basilio]

Excellent historical and current update on ABC. I think most people have only a hazy idea of why this place is such a powder keg.
Far better than than simplistic piccies of rockets flying overhead.

Confused about what's happening in Israel and the Palestinian Territories? Let's catch you up

There is always tension in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, but recently they have intensified and this week, they erupted. We look at the region's history, what's happening now and what all sides are saying.

www.abc.net.au

 

[rederob]

Here is America again defending the free world.
Oh, maybe America doesn't know the rest of the world refers to Gaza an "an open-air prison".
No moral compass!

 

[explod]

Dreadful. why can't people live and share peacefully together.