Thread: England is anti-semetic

Originally Posted by Mike C

Baron, are you saying that Bloody Sunday makes the Israeli treatment of Palestinian civilians ok?

Have I said that in any of my posts?

That was the implication I read. Israel over-reacts to Hamas, Britain over-reacts to Irish. One justifies or excuses the other. More to the point: do you defend the Israeli action?

The simple truth is that Hamas will never achieve their aims through rocketfire. Israel will never achieve theirs through forced occupation and invasion. Conflict is ended through 'jaw-jaw, not war-war', to quote Churchill.

Nobody is condoning Hamas' violent action, though one has to have some sympathy with the Palestinian people as their homeland is being slowly eroded to build homes for Israelis and they're suffering a quite punitive blockade. Israel is in a position of strength but rather than using that strength to build bridges and encourage peace, they're taking the part of bully. Their use of banned white phosophorus shells in civilian areas, for example, shows that they have an apalling disregard for not only Palestinian lives, but world opinion.

For many years in the UK there were no efforts to end the conflict with the IRA. This wasn't because there were no means to achieve peace, but because successive British Governments recognised that we had, in our back yards, the world's best urban warfare training ground. I would hazard a guess that behinfd closed doors Israeli ministers welcome Hamas and the small amount of damage their rockets do because it makes annexing their lands easier to justify. I would also suspect that Hamas doesn't mind sacrificing a few civilians here and there because it makes it easier to demonise the Israelis.

But then, I'm a cynical bastard. The sad truth remains; the victims aren't soldiers or politicians, but the poor bastards on either side caught in the crossfire.

Atrocities are atrocities no matter who commits them or how you play the numbers game. As for the British Army, it's naive to think that they regard civilian populations and are no longer commiting atrocities. By going into conspiracy theory stuff and claiming that Ireland has been used deliberately as an urban warfare training ground you're implicitly contadicting your earlier statement that there's a mandate to protect the civilian population.

My point is about bias, not justification, and there is no doubt that there's a media bias against Israel at this time.

Originally Posted by Mike C

This conflict is going to run and run until people finally realise, as the IRA and the British Government did, that you don't end wars by killing more people, but by stopping, and talking. Until somebody's brave enough to do that, the wrong people are going to be the ones getting buried, day in, day out.

Based on the past, Israel has shown that it will sit down and talk with people who will recognize it's right to exist -- and make concessions.

But the aim of Hamas is to create an Islamic state, not just in Gaza and/or the West Bank, but in Israel too, with a capital of Jerusalem. It has nothing to do with sharing a government or self-rule or having two states that might coexist.

No concession that Israel might make will ever satisfy Hamas. That's why any comparison of Hamas and the IRA is apples to oranges, regardless.

Getting back to the OP, disagreeing with Israeli actions doesn't make someone anti-Semitic. It's also a fact that someone who is an anti-Semite is never likely to agree with anything that Israel does or see any justification for those actions. The amount of anti-Semitic expression that I still encounter in the UK appals .me. Even more so when I here it from people who advocate political correctness. These tend to be those who deny any anti-Jewish thinking whilst blindly propagating anti-Semitic myths.

Originally Posted by Baron

Getting back to the OP, disagreeing with Israeli actions doesn't make someone anti-Semitic.

Funnily enough, exactly the point I came back to make.

There are elements of anti-whatever everywhere. Black, jew, gay, red hair, people with squints... but I hold that, though we're not perfect as a nation, we're more tolerant than many. Despite people like Mosely, for example, we have a large jewish population because over the years Britain's been seen as a safe haven.

As far press bias, I think it largely depends what elements of the press you choose to look at, and when. When I was a kid, for example, Israel was shown almost universally to be a shining example of heroism. And again, I'll point out that reporting the truth when it shows one party as being more extreme in its action than the other does not constitute bias.

Joseph, I think if you look at history more realistically you'll see that Israel negotiates peace only when it's beaten an opponent into submission, and/or sees a financial benefit. Egypt, for example, is expected to participate in the blockade of palestine and supplies oil to Israel at below cost. Any Israeli politician who suggests negotiating with palestine currently will find himself extremely unpopular. There will be no peace with Palestine all the time they have something Israel wants - land.

Why are your examples so pathetically skewed, Mike? Britain has been involved in wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan in the last decade. Were you calling Britain a bully then or is it just Israel who, whenever they use force to respond to the threat of Hamas, is the bully? Why don't you be consistent and condemn Britain for the same thing you condemn Israel for? Let's see whether you're consistent or, alternatively, what pathetic excuse you come up with.

Joseph, I think if you look at history more realistically you'll see that Israel negotiates peace only when it's beaten an opponent into submission

A more accurate and realistic look at history will show you that is militant Islam, which is exactly what Hamas adheres to. Look up the term Dhimmi and then read how it has been historically interpreted by those good Muslims who we've all come to look up to so much:

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20986

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

Blood, The number killed by Hamas rockets was in single figures, two thirds of those killed by the Israelis in their invasion were women and children.

Well Olly, where did you hear that? I’m sure you read it somewhere just couldn’t find it. Not two but three problems with the above...

First, “The number killed by Hamas rockets was in single figure,” not clear if we’re talking about a single event or longer period of time compared to...

Second, the word 'Hamas' sounds a lot like the same kind of people who caused 9/11. As I say, “If it walks like a duck, it ain’t no lizard.” Anyway we semi-informed US people, meaning whatever, fail to differentiate. Question is why don’t you? Choices are anti-semantic or willfully ignorant. Best answer...one in the same.

And thirdly, that “two thirds of those killed by the Israelis in their invasion were women and children.” And how can we even be sure that they were killed by Israelis? All that comment attempts to show are of those killed, on both sides. I read somewhere that in some Israel/Palestine conflict (see how I did that Olly?) that the Palestinians suffered disproportionate losses to the Israelis, but then a third of the Palestinian dead were killed by their own. Ever stop to think?

Typically, Israeli troops under attack have numbered fewer than 20, while their assailants, armed with Molotov cocktails, pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, hand grenades and explosives, have numbered in the hundreds. Moreover, mixed among rock throwers have been Palestinians, often policemen, armed with guns. Faced with an angry, violent mob, Israeli police and soldiers often have no choice but to defend themselves by firing rubber bullets and, in life-threatening situations, live ammunition.

The use of live-fire by the Palestinians has effectively meant that Israeli forces have had to remain at some distance from those initiating the violence. In addition, the threat of force against Israelis has been a threat of lethal force. Both factors have inhibited the use of traditional methods of riot control.

I’ll quit there for now.

Saving the rest for MikeC.


Current theme song...

The BBC is not noted for pro-Israel reporting. Nevertheless a BBC news program, Panorama, has exposed the Mavi Marmara incident as a terrorist propaganda exercise. Significantly, two thirds of the "medical supplies" being carried were out of date and provided nothing more than window dressing.





There is also footage of attacks on Israeli boats, making it necessary for the Israelis to board by helicopter. Footage also shows passengers using tools to cut railings to create clubs as well as throwing bottles, chairs, and other objects at the Israeli boats. An interview with a crew member of the Mavi Marmara said that 40 IHH activists took control of the ship on the evening of May 31st and restricted access to the deck. Israeli Maj Gen (Retired) Giora Eiland believes that these forty people were the troublemakes, while the remaining passengers were largely innocent, peaceful bystanders.

It's significant that the evidence uncovered by Panorama has not made major news coverage.

It's also sad that the majority prefer to remain in denial rather than accept being suckered into condemnation of Israel's action.

I have always seen it as a bias towards a nation, rather than a religion. And I've never heard that phrase either. Maybe it was around in the 1920s or something.

Israel has had to work hard to defend a small peice of land to call thier own. THey have been persecuted far longer than any other group.

on the flip-side, they should learn to be respectful and not take everyone as eaither for or against them. sometimes they are wrong too, they have to accept that.

Here's a few things to keep in mind:

a) They've dished it out themselves given the opportunity.

b) You don't know about groups that have experienced similar or worse treatment.

c) Jews are non-believers. Whether or not they're persecuted, they have condemned themselves to not going to heaven.

You can keep them in mind if you'd like, but those points are irrelevant to the OP and pretty much everything else in the thread -- especially "c."

Where you believe any people may or may not go in the afterlife has no bearing on how they should be treated or considered in the here and now.

I don't find this surprising considering history between the two nations. Not that anyone pays attention to history anymore.

it's just as anoying as the african-american community playing the race card all the time. It annoys me to no end. I'm not racist or anti-semitic, i just have some self-respect not to go on the high-defense every time someone disagrees with me.