(no subject)

[dikayasobaka]

Раскрываем тему дальше.

Роберт Фиск написал интересную статью про политкорректность в исполнении влиятельных еврейских групп на Западе. В принципе, вариант примерно тот же, что и в любом ином исполнении - но масштабы довольно внушительные.

Вот она, с моими комментариями:
The erosion of free speech (англ.)

Comments

[ygam.livejournal.com]

Rachel's was the wrong sort of courage

Yup. Exactly.

[dikayasobaka.livejournal.com]

Мне отчасти и это в ней не понравилось - она по сути использовала свой статус американки при том, что принципиальной позицией при таких взглядах была бы эмиграция и отказ от гражданства.

[ygam.livejournal.com]

Шотландский писатель-фантаст Иэн Бэнкс тоже в Австралии демонстративно разорвал британский паспорт в знак протеста против британского вторжения в Ирак, но я не слышал, чтобы он отказывался от британского гражданства и просил в Австралии политическое убежище.

"За то, что я вас учу есть огурцы вилкой, я сам могу их есть руками," - мой брат в возрасте 10 лет.

[-s-a-v-v-a-.livejournal.com]

I do not have Russian keyboard here, so sorry for the poor English below :)

Yes, it is true that she used her status of an American citizen, so as other international members of ISM did. It is the mission of the organization to provide international and non-violent protection or Palestinian people in occupied territories. Because Israeli army cannot use force against American or European citizents, it cannot shoot rubber bullets at them, e.t.c. Or so it used to be thought.
But the way, was there any official response from the "buldozer" side? I heard (but that was from ISM people, so it might be subjective) that the driver was not found guilty because he had a prove of bad vision(?!!!?)

[ygam.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is true that she used her status of an American citizen, so as other international members of ISM did.

In this case, it was hypocritical for her to burn a mock U.S. flag.

Because Israeli army cannot use force against American or European citizents, it cannot shoot rubber bullets at them, e.t.c.

A foreigner who enters a war zone should expect to be caught in crossfire.

But the way, was there any official response from the "buldozer" side?

Read the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie

[-s-a-v-v-a-.livejournal.com]

it was hypocritical for her to burn a mock U.S. flag
I don't know about that. But if she did, than I guess you are right.

A foreigner who enters a war zone should expect to be caught in crossfire.
There is no war there.

Read the Wikipedia article
Reading. Thanks. "The Israeli army's investigation, led by the chief of the general staff of the IDF, found that Israeli forces were not guilty of any misconduct"

[ygam.livejournal.com]

I don't know about that.

That's what she did on the picture I posted.

There is no war there.

Intifada II was not a war between sovereign states, like the Russo-Japanese War or the Spanish-American War; it was a guerilla war, like most modern wars - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Algeria, Kashmir, Iraq etc. By denying that it was a war, you resemble the Bush administration, which calls the Iraqi insurgents "the anti-Iraqi forces" rather than irregular soldiers fighting a war.

[-s-a-v-v-a-.livejournal.com]

Woa! Bush administration! me?! how did we get there?! that's even funny :) Mister, you don't need to give me those lectures, I teach at the same university :))))

FYI

[gera.livejournal.com]

Fisk, for years one of England`s most notoriously anti-Israel journalists (no mean feat (http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/440/Media_Monitor.html)

I remember how Fisk once wrote about two Israeli teenagers, whose bodies were found with their heads smashed, apparently by Palestinians (and I quote from the memory): "Yes, it's terrible that they were killed, but don't forget that they lived on the occupied territories".

Re: FYI

[dikayasobaka.livejournal.com]

Note the absense of hyperlinks (or dates and names of publications referenced) in the article you are quoting. Is that a chance ommission, or is that because the author is emotionalizing issues and taking things out of context?

For your information, I don't like Fisk all that much, and I do think he's got undue animus towards Israel. That said, he is a first-rate journalist and many of his reports are very informative and relevant.

As for other things mentioned in the article, such as the Muslim persecution in America after 9/11 - they are quite real.

Now the statement you are quoting: "Yes, it's terrible that they were killed, but don't forget that they lived on the occupied territories." is no doubt somewhat disgusting but no more so than the sentiment expressed in war all over the world. Like, "It's too bad all those Iraqis had to die but we are fighting terrorism over there" (could be heard all over the US of A these days).

Re: FYI

[gera.livejournal.com]

What Fisk is engaging in is not journalism as I see it, but rather political activism. He is not interested in uncovering the truth, he is not even trying to appear balanced. Everything he writes about Israel or Middle East conflict is virulently anti-Israel. I wouldn't call such activity journalism and wouldn't even try to judge it as such. This a purely political activity.
If you have any doubt about that, try to find an article by Fisk where Israel comes out good and it's enemies bad.

Now the statement you are quoting: "Yes, it's terrible that they were killed, but don't forget that they lived on the occupied territories." is no doubt somewhat disgusting but no more so than the sentiment expressed in war all over the world. Like, "It's too bad all those Iraqis had to die but we are fighting terrorism over there" (could be heard all over the US of A these days).

"No more"? I detect a little difference in circumstances here. When you cause someone's death unintentionally and/or indirectly people tend to treat you least harshly then in case of intentional murder. People in Iraq are dying mostly from insurgents' bombs. In order to understand the difference try to imagine how much more disgusting the above sentence would be if those car bombs were intentionally set by the Americans to murder the Iraqi civilians.

Re: FYI

[dikayasobaka.livejournal.com]

> Everything he writes about Israel or Middle East conflict is virulently anti-Israel.

Not everything.

> He is not interested in uncovering the truth, he is not even trying to appear balanced

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I don't think he deliberately excludes any facts from his reporting - though his interpretations and commentary are often very odious.

> In order to understand the difference try to imagine how much more disgusting the above sentence would be if those car bombs were intentionally set by the Americans to murder the Iraqi civilians.

Well, the Americans used two nuclear devices to murder tens of thousands of the Japanese civilians. Not much remorse on the societal scale to this day (even though by now it is pretty much established that Japan by that time was a spent force, the bombs were mostly intended to impress Stalin and major cities were selected to maximize the body count).

Don't get me wrong, I find all kinds of terrorism equally disgusting, but if you look around you are gonna' see a lot of support for whomever this population or that views as the "good guys", no matter how much terror those good guys engage in. Look no further than Baruch Goldstein, for instance.

Re: FYI

[gera.livejournal.com]

Not everything.

Yep, sometimes it just doesn't have to do with Israel :)

Well, the Americans used two nuclear devices to murder tens of thousands of the Japanese civilians. Not much remorse on the societal scale to this day (even though by now it is pretty much established that Japan by that time was a spent force

Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile as it was in retrospect, as the war came to its inevitable conclusion. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the initial blast of the atomic bombings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Support_for_use_of_atomic_bombs)

How many people do you think would die if there was a land invasion? You cannot judge such decisions in a vacuum, forgetting about what was the alternative in that war.

Anyway, it's kind of odd to bring up Hiroshima to exonerate Fisk's hatred of Israel.

Don't get me wrong, I find all kinds of terrorism equally disgusting, but if you look around you are gonna' see a lot of support for whomever this population or that views as the "good guys", no matter how much terror those good guys engage in. Look no further than Baruch Goldstein, for instance.

And how much support do you think he has in the Israeli society? What percentage?

Re: FYI

[dikayasobaka.livejournal.com]

> How many people do you think would die if there was a land invasion? You cannot judge such decisions in a vacuum, forgetting about what was the alternative in that war.

I don't believe the land invasion would have been necessary. The Japanese were ready to accept all terms of surrender save for the American demand that they denounce the divine nature of their emperor.

And yes, you can not judge any decision in a vacuum. And I am not. Would you consider the possibility that maybe some in the ranks of Hamas of PFLP believe that their barbaric terror attacks are justified because in the end they would save more lives?

I could criticize Mr Hanson too, but that's not even necessary here. Even assuming he is right your argument does not hold water.

> Anyway, it's kind of odd to bring up Hiroshima to exonerate Fisk's hatred of Israel.

I am not trying to condemn or exonerate anybody here. Though, frankly, I think what Fisk hates is Israel's policies; I have no reason to believe him to be anti-Semitic.

> And how much support do you think he has in the Israeli society? What percentage?

My guess would be that at least 10% of Israelis think very favorably of him. This is just a guess.

Re: FYI

[ygam.livejournal.com]

I don't believe the land invasion would have been necessary.

Nevertheless the United States seriously prepared for launching such an invasion, and Japan seriously prepared for repelling it, even issuing schoolgirls with awls and telling them to attack American soldiers in the belly.

Read Downfall by Richard Frank.

Re: FYI

[gera.livejournal.com]

I don't believe the land invasion would have been necessary. The Japanese were ready to accept all terms of surrender save for the American demand that they denounce the divine nature of their emperor.

So why didn't they surrender before the bombing like they did after them? What were they waiting for? Why didn't they surrender after losing 120,000 to conventional weapons? Why on Earth didn't they surrender after the first atomic bomb? Pardon me, but it's your argument that doesn't hold water.

And yes, you can not judge any decision in a vacuum. And I am not. Would you consider the possibility that maybe some in the ranks of Hamas of PFLP believe that their barbaric terror attacks are justified because in the end they would save more lives?

You may consider any possibility if you have imagination wild enough, even that there are little green people are living inside your body, or alternatively that all of us are living in a huge box, observed by huge green people. But if you want to stay within the limits of reason, you'll realize that there is no place for such parallel.
US Navy estimated that the land invasion may result in up to 10 million of Japanese civilian casualties (I can't find the link right now) and huge military casualties on both sides. Even if they overestimated that tenfold, the bombings still saved lives by immediately ending the war. Now in your understandably hypothetical parallel, how exactly may the terrorists be thinking that their attacks are saving lives?
Even if you imagine that they expected Israel's (literal) surrender, they have long been proven wrong.

Though, frankly, I think what Fisk hates is Israel's policies; I have no reason to believe him to be anti-Semitic.

He hates not "Israeli policies", but that monstrous picture of Israel that is drawn in his circles and that he himself takes great pains to perpetuate. He is definitely not motivated by a desire to find out what's going or to present a balanced picture to his readers. He is engaging is a pretty obvious political crusade.

My guess would be that at least 10% of Israelis think very favorably of him. This is just a guess.

Yep, keep reading Fisk, you'll be guessing about 90%.

Or you can take it from me, as a person who lived their in the time of the event and for a while afterwards: this action was condemned by all political parties represented in the Knesset; there wasn't a single newspaper or single journalist I am aware of, that expressed support for what he did; there was a huge (tens of thousands) demonstration of Israelies to condemn the attack. If there were 10% supporting him, they sure didn't make themselves heard (except a few dozens of fringe fanatics around his grave). In fact, in the far right they rather believe that this was a deliberate provocation by the Rabin government in order to discredit them.
Contrast it with the Palestinian where the majority supports suicide bombers; where they dance when they hear about buses blown up; where they teach their children that it's a duty to follow in terrorists' footstep and this idea is expressed in the media and the school curricula, and will realize that even equivalence that you are trying to draw is pretty far from the truth. You can just imagine how close to it Fisk is, in whose opinion there is one side that is mostly if not always guilty.

Now, it's funny that you denounce political correctness here while writing something like this (http://dikayasobaka.livejournal.com/460603.html?thread=4118331#t4118331), where you are trying to accuse both sides so as to create an appearance of a balanced approach, but your critique of Israel is apparently not based on any knowledge of the situation as a brief inquiry has shown (you couldn't describe the rights Arabs citizens don't have).

[badenov.livejournal.com]

Сами палестинцы считают свои отношения с Израилем состоянием войны. Я разговаривал с несколькими из них, и это однозначно. ISM - это организация, созданная палестинцами себе же в помощь. Назначение КПП - не пропустить в Израиль оружие и взрывчатку. Иностранец, отвлекающий солдат от выполнения их задачи, помогает врагу осуществить его задачу. Требовать от израильской армии чтобы она обеспечила безопасность ISM агента бросающегося под бульдозер просто нелепо. Кори погибла воюя против Израиля.

Что касается рассказа "Realities of Palestine", спросите себя что должен делать солдат, в которого кидают камни? Ждать пока попадут? Он стрельнул в воздух чтобы разогнать хулиганов. Если бы он стрелял в них, то попал бы. "Fortunately they were able to dodge the bullets ...". Как в кино Матрица?

[dikayasobaka.livejournal.com]

> Он стрельнул в воздух чтобы разогнать хулиганов. Если бы он стрелял в них, то попал бы.

Откуда Вы знаете? Вы можете расписаться в снайперских способностях всех воинов ЦАХАЛа? :)

Вполне возможно Вы правы, а возможно он бил на поражение, просто не попал. Когда оружие направляют на людей, в-прочем, это уже не в воздух.

И во всем остальном Вашем тексте много неточностей. К примеру, какое отношение Корри имеет к функциям КПП не совсем понятно. Хотя в целом да, соглашусь с Вами, что ISM организация скорее военная нежели мирная, что они по сути выступают в качестве живого щита, блокирующего действия израильских сил.

[ygam.livejournal.com]

Никто ничего не знает, но комментарии gloochie, rockadanny и o_aronius здесь говорят о том, что это маловероятно. Я так и подозревал, и поэтому открыл эту тему в сообществе meast_ru.

[dikayasobaka.livejournal.com]

Да, спасибо, я видел.

[arusinov.livejournal.com]

"the degree of abuse and outright threats now being directed at anyone ... who dares to criticise Israel ... is fast reaching McCarthyite proportions. The attempt to force the media to obey Israel's rules is ... international"

Значит CNN проявил просто фантастическую храбрость, когда упорно рассказывал сказки о "резне в Дженине"...
А уж КиноАкадемия и обозреватели, которые дали "Раю сегодня" Золотой Глобус и выдвинули его на Оскар - вообще храбрецы и герои.

Но вообще-то, интересно как точка зрения меняет восприятие... Нам в Израиле кажется, что в большей части СМИ (например: CNN, BBC) именно защищать Израиль сегодня не принято и не политкорректно, а как раз критиковать (то есть обливать грязью) Израиль - очень даже разрешается и даже поощряется

[dikayasobaka.livejournal.com]

Это действует в обе стороны. С одной стороны, нельзя занимать открыто произраильскую позицию (это - политкорректная цензура со стороны мусульман и нефтяного лобби). С другой стороны, нельзя подымать некоторые вопросы израильской и вообще еврейской истории (например, тему комерческого использования Холокоста и т.д.).

[arusinov.livejournal.com]

О Холокосте говорить не будем - это совсем другая тема...
А вот что нельзя обсуждать в истории Израиля?

[dikayasobaka.livejournal.com]

> О Холокосте говорить не будем - это совсем другая тема...

Совсем нет. Холокост приводится и как довод к образованию Израиля, и как довод в пользу некоего особого статуса Израиля (типа как образ жертвы). Не поймите меня неправильно - мне нравится Израиль, и мне нравится то, что у Израиля есть сильная армия, способная его защитить - но бесконечное повторение мантры о том, как Израилю грозит Холокост, сейчас мне кажется абсолютно неуместным. А ее многие повторяют, и весьма энергично.

> А вот что нельзя обсуждать в истории Израиля?

В "мейнстриме" - довольно многое. Лозунг ранних сионистов: "Земля без людей для народа без земли" (никогда не видели, чтобы это было упомянуто).

Очень часто те, кто критикуют Израиль, немедленно обвиняются в антисемитизме - зачастую совсем безосновательно. Потому многие малоприятные эпизоды израильскойжизни освещаются слабо. Сравните, скажем, освещение в прессе нападения в синагоге в Москве и избиения в Израиле мужика, одевшегося Дедом Морозом в Новый Год.

[arusinov.livejournal.com]

Совсем нет. Холокост приводится и как довод к образованию Израиля, и как довод в пользу некоего особого статуса Израиля (типа как образ жертвы).

Насколько я знаю (не вдаваясь в подробности этих глупых, ИМХО, законов) - запрещают отрицать Холокост, говорить о том что "Израиль цинично им пользуется" - не запрещено, и я не раз слышал такие высказывания (в том чисел вполне в "мейнстриме"). Более того очень часто Холокост как раз анти-сионисты, у которых Израиль проходит по ведомству нацистов-колонизаторов, устраивающих "современный Холокост" арабам.
"Особое отношение"? Только в том смысле, что о 20 погибших мирных жителях в Дженине, что в ООН, что в прессе говорят в 200 раз больше чем о 200,000 где-нибудь в Африке...

В "мейнстриме" - довольно многое. Лозунг ранних сионистов: "Земля без людей для народа без земли" (никогда не видели, чтобы это было упомянуто).

Кто такие "ранние сионисты"? Если хотите можно обсудить взгляды на ситуацию, например, Жаботинского - вкратце: он (никогда не называя страну "пустой") считал, что она может вместить в 10 раз больше населения... и видимо, был прав.
В любом случае, если Вы хотите сказать, что сегодня кому-то мешают говорить, что мандатная Палестина не была пустой страной, и в ней было арабское население... мнa, прaвду сказать, очень трудно в это поверить (ну почитайте хотя бы 101 по Ближнему Востоку на сайте CNN)...

Потому многие малоприятные эпизоды израильскойжизни освещаются слабо. Сравните, скажем, освещение в прессе нападения в синагоге в Москве и избиения в Израиле мужика, одевшегося Дедом Морозом в Новый Год

Эпизод, конечно, неприятный... Даже более чем.
Но Вы действительно считаете, что разбитые фары в машине, и сломанный нос (три часа в больнице, неделю дома с гипсом) телеведущего, побитого пьяными подростками, должны открывать международные сводки новостей? Даже если кто-то из подростков кричал "смерть христианам"? Мне так кажется, что этот случай получил в СМИ не меньше (ну может в этот раз и не больше...) внимания, чем подобные истории в других странах (во Франции, например).

С другой стороны, когда пара придурков решила привлечь к себе внимание взрывами хлопушек в Храме в Назарете (там вообще пострадавших не было, кстати) - несколько часов по телевидению только об этом и говорили, по всем каналам...