11 ms·

Valid points, but I don’t think it’s a comparable situation. Israel is constantly being attacked by people living on its own soil. It’s fairer to compare US int

Valid points, but I don’t think it’s a comparable situation. Israel is constantly being attacked by people living on its own soil. It’s fairer to compare US intelligence gathering in Iraq with Israel’s intelligence gathering within Israel. If Arizonans were to start firing dozens of rockets a day at California, the US government would be way less civil than Israel has been to the Gazans. (And they have been, remember the detainment camps for Japanese Americans?) NB: I count 3 instances of ‘abhor’ in the article, none of them used correctly. (The original Hebrew article speaks of נפעם, ‘excited’.)

znowi 13y ago
Exactly. Israel is in a unique situation and has been on high alert since the inception.
einhverfr 13y ago
True. Of course if a large segment of those whose connection of birth and heritage to the territory that Israel effectively owned were denied citizenship in the US, we might have a similar situation. (We do have this situation with American Samoa which I think is a significant problem but it's only half a million residents so not comparable at all.) I think going into a major back and forth though would be off-topic here. I do think the problem is not one side's fault but the fact that quite a number of sides (way more than two) want to see conflict continue because it is what they know best.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
carlob 13y ago
I understand the US media is heavily skewed in support of Israel, but your comparison is not fair at all. Why is Israel being constantly attacked on its soil? First of all because it's been aggressively expanding its borders to the expense of the local Palestinian population for the past 65 years. Secondly Israel is a theocratic state, where citizens of different religions have different sets of rights, where the situation has been described by Israeli commentator as bordering apartheid. It's extremely misleading to say "If Arizonans were to start firing dozens of rockets a day at California…". The Palestinians have not started randomly bombing Israel out of the blue. Also I wouldn't use the Israeli in Gaza as a paragon of virtue: I don't think that California would start using phosphorus bombs against Arizonan civilians, since it's explicitly forbidden by the Geneva convention. But since the US have actually used phosphorus against civilians in Fallujah in 2004, maybe you're right, they would be less civil.
- cema 13y ago
  I understand the US media is heavily skewed in support of Israel My impression is the US media is heavily skewed regarding Israel, however some are skewed one way, others the other. To a smaller extent, the same is true about European media.
  - eropple 13y ago
    The mainstream US media is universally skewed pro-Israel and attempts to present a pro-Palestinian, or even less than fawning, point of view are regularly shouted down as being anti-Semitic.
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      Speaking of ‘Palestinians’, meaning Muslims residing in historic Palestine, is anti-Semitic. There are Palestinian Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc. It’s about an area of origin, not a religion or a race. The label has been hijacked to create a false history of Muslims in the area. Please remember that Islam is a relatively young religion compared to Judaism and Christianity.
      - eropple 13y ago
        Uh...no. This is real simple. The people of Gaza and the West Bank use the demonym; Israelis do not. It is appropriate to call people what they call themselves, and so I do. And even were it a reasonable comment on your part (it's not but it is in keeping with your rabidly pro-Israel, burn-the-Muslims worldview that your comment history demonstrates), I think using the demonym that the targets of systematic economic and cultural oppression use to describe themselves is somewhere well below the literal least we can do. (And to forestall the tired and obviously dishonest because the self-victimization is appalling: no, the Israelis don't get to have that excuse when they have the strongest military in the world completely backing any and all injustice they wish to perpetuate. Not allowed.) I shouldn't have risen to your bait, but I'm tired and annoyed by people who would abuse America to do evil and you are one of them. You will, I am sure, leap to take the last word.
rimantas 13y ago
Does not UN consider some of that soil to be occupied land?

znowi 13y ago

Exactly. Israel is in a unique situation and has been on high alert since the inception.

einhverfr 13y ago

True. Of course if a large segment of those whose connection of birth and heritage to the territory that Israel effectively owned were denied citizenship in the US, we might have a similar situation. (We do have this situation with American Samoa which I think is a significant problem but it's only half a million residents so not comparable at all.) I think going into a major back and forth though would be off-topic here. I do think the problem is not one side's fault but the fact that quite a number of sides (way more than two) want to see conflict continue because it is what they know best.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

carlob 13y ago

I understand the US media is heavily skewed in support of Israel, but your comparison is not fair at all. Why is Israel being constantly attacked on its soil? First of all because it's been aggressively expanding its borders to the expense of the local Palestinian population for the past 65 years. Secondly Israel is a theocratic state, where citizens of different religions have different sets of rights, where the situation has been described by Israeli commentator as bordering apartheid. It's extremely misleading to say "If Arizonans were to start firing dozens of rockets a day at California…". The Palestinians have not started randomly bombing Israel out of the blue. Also I wouldn't use the Israeli in Gaza as a paragon of virtue: I don't think that California would start using phosphorus bombs against Arizonan civilians, since it's explicitly forbidden by the Geneva convention. But since the US have actually used phosphorus against civilians in Fallujah in 2004, maybe you're right, they would be less civil.

cema 13y ago
I understand the US media is heavily skewed in support of Israel My impression is the US media is heavily skewed regarding Israel, however some are skewed one way, others the other. To a smaller extent, the same is true about European media.
- eropple 13y ago
  The mainstream US media is universally skewed pro-Israel and attempts to present a pro-Palestinian, or even less than fawning, point of view are regularly shouted down as being anti-Semitic.
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    Speaking of ‘Palestinians’, meaning Muslims residing in historic Palestine, is anti-Semitic. There are Palestinian Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc. It’s about an area of origin, not a religion or a race. The label has been hijacked to create a false history of Muslims in the area. Please remember that Islam is a relatively young religion compared to Judaism and Christianity.
    - eropple 13y ago
      Uh...no. This is real simple. The people of Gaza and the West Bank use the demonym; Israelis do not. It is appropriate to call people what they call themselves, and so I do. And even were it a reasonable comment on your part (it's not but it is in keeping with your rabidly pro-Israel, burn-the-Muslims worldview that your comment history demonstrates), I think using the demonym that the targets of systematic economic and cultural oppression use to describe themselves is somewhere well below the literal least we can do. (And to forestall the tired and obviously dishonest because the self-victimization is appalling: no, the Israelis don't get to have that excuse when they have the strongest military in the world completely backing any and all injustice they wish to perpetuate. Not allowed.) I shouldn't have risen to your bait, but I'm tired and annoyed by people who would abuse America to do evil and you are one of them. You will, I am sure, leap to take the last word.

rimantas 13y ago

Does not UN consider some of that soil to be occupied land?