Now I know why the English side with the Palestinians
sponger
Posts: 3,159
Had myself a conversation with an English guy tonight. And with me being in a usual mischievous mood, I decied bring up you know what.
Of course, his first reaction was that he had no opinion on the subject.
Eventually, out came the truth.
"From what I can tell, what Israel is doing to Palestine is far worse than what Palestine has ever done to Israel. All Palestinians want is their land back."
LOL.
And in true fashion of people who share his point of view, he COMPLETELY side-stepped anything concerning the political atmosphere of Lebanon and Palestine, and the self-perpetuated internal strife that goes along with it.
And then I heard something that I had never heard before in relation to the topic at hand.
He goes, "Remember the IRA, and how they 'terrorized' England day after day?"
"Yeah."
He went, "Before 9/11, you Americans sympathized with the northern Irelanders. After 9/11, you Americans finally realized what it means to be terrorized."
And that's when it dawned on me.
The English are bitter about being cold-shouldered when it came their terrorist problem. In return, they pride themselves on cold-shouldering Israel and its terrorist problem because, to the English, Israel and America are one in the same.
Of course, his first reaction was that he had no opinion on the subject.
Eventually, out came the truth.
"From what I can tell, what Israel is doing to Palestine is far worse than what Palestine has ever done to Israel. All Palestinians want is their land back."
LOL.
And in true fashion of people who share his point of view, he COMPLETELY side-stepped anything concerning the political atmosphere of Lebanon and Palestine, and the self-perpetuated internal strife that goes along with it.
And then I heard something that I had never heard before in relation to the topic at hand.
He goes, "Remember the IRA, and how they 'terrorized' England day after day?"
"Yeah."
He went, "Before 9/11, you Americans sympathized with the northern Irelanders. After 9/11, you Americans finally realized what it means to be terrorized."
And that's when it dawned on me.
The English are bitter about being cold-shouldered when it came their terrorist problem. In return, they pride themselves on cold-shouldering Israel and its terrorist problem because, to the English, Israel and America are one in the same.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
So now you 'know why the English side with the Palestinians'?
Errm, o.k.
I'll be frank about what I think about this thread: I've been posting here for almost 3 years and this is the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen on the M.T.
Read through your post again carefully and think about what you've said. You should be embarrassed.
Of course you think it's ridiuclous. It's not in-line with your beliefs.
Next.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
It's got nothing to do with my beliefs. It's just completey ridiculous from the title to the last word. Period.
Edit: In fact, after I'd posted my first post I wondered if you had in fact meant it as some sort of joke - despite the fact that it's not funny. Obviously you were serious. Weird.
You don't really know what's going on in Palestine/Lebonon anyway, so eh, it's not really for you to post in this thread with anything to actually contribute.
I remember once mentiong to you Arafat and the PLO, and you were basically like Arawho? The PLWhat?
That is unless you've actually read up on the subject lately. Then by all means enlighten. Otherwise, you're just the sort of guy that I'm referring to in my post -pretending to have an opinion without actually having one.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Yeah, sure that was me. It sounds just like me.
I'd let this thread die the death it deserves if i were you. Seriously, do you not realise that you're embarrasing yourself?
"Hi my name is Brynzie and I am totally uninformed about middle eastern politics."
I have proven it time and time again. Aren't you one of those International Language Instructors? Ha Ha Ha.
Didn't you live with your parents until you like 30 years old? LMFAO!
What are you doing here? Read up. Get smart.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Wow that's one enlightening thought you had there, but i think you will find it's way off base.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Uh, no. Just look at Byrnzie's comments. He has no idea what's going on when it comes to that whole situation. In fact, just look at anything that Byrnzie says about just anything.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Wrong. It's Byrnzie, and I've read many books on Middle Eastern Politics.
Ha Ha Ha?
Wrong. I left home when I was 21.
Thanks for the advice. I really need advice from someone who creates a thread titled 'Now I know why the English side with the Palestinians'. You're obviously a force to be reckoned with.
Then why haven't you learned anything?
Ha Ha Ha?
well then you must've moved back in because I remember your saying that you had to mooch off ur mum and pops at the tender age of 30.
You don't need advice. You need schooling.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
You really are very confused. I suggest medical advice.
Really? So do you think that If I work hard enough at educating myself that I can possibly one day achieve such heights of wisdom as you displayed in the original post in this thread?
Damn. I do really hope so.
What's sad is that you think you're being sarcastic.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
LOL indeed!
Damn! You hit the nail square on the head again! Of course the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has everything to do with the 'political atmosphere' of Lebanon! What a dumbass your friend is!
Here's where I take my hat off to ya! Seriously, are you a philosopher? Of course it's obvious when spelled out in the clear light of day that the reason that every English person supports the Palestinians is because we feel betrayed by America's support of Shin Fein!
All I can say is that I hope as many people as possible get to read your words so that Israel can be vindicated and supported even more in it's rightful claim to land that doesn't presently belong to it. In fact, you should write to the U.N. Maybe after reading your wisdom they'll overturn the resolutions which call for a two-state settlement and which every country but America has supported for the past 30 years!
Uninformed? Yes. Stupid? No. Stupid is not a constructive term.
Gaza is no longer occupied with exception to the airspace. If the arabs were so concerned about holding the West Bank, then they wouldn't have attempted to invade and ultimately wipe out Israel.
Those are the kinds of risks that grown-ups should understand when they wage war. It's common sense to most, but still a mystery to others. Peace is not achieved through genocide. Yet, genocide against Israel was attempted. Why do you support it?
...every English person WHO supports the Palestinians. Common sense would dictate that the thread does not assume that all English people support the Palestinians.
This statement is clearly resorting to an appeal to authority. You abandon logic and reason and replace it with the authoritative "presence" of big political organizations, such as the UN.
And, of course, the UN is not concerned about right and wrong, more or less just "greasing the squeakiest wheel" as they say.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Your comment is a lie.
From 'Beyond Chutzpah' - Norman Finkelstein':
'In a study entitled 'One big prison', the respected Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem observed that the crippling economic arrangements Israel had imposed on Gaza would remain in place. In addition, Israel would continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza's land borders, coastline, and airspace, and the Israeli army would continue to operate in Gaza. 'So long as these methods of control remain in Israeli hands, B'Tselem concluded, "Israel's claim of an 'end of the occupation is questionable'. HRW was yet more emphatic that evacuating settlers and troops from inside Gaza would not end the occupation: "Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around it's periphery, and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control". The leading scholarly authority on the Gaza strip, Sara Roy of Harvard University, predicted that Gaza would remain "an imprisoned enclave," while it's economy, still dependent on Israel after disengagement and in shambles after decades of deliberately ruinous practices by Israel, would actually deteriorate.'
'The Arabs' you say? The Palestinians have not at any time invaded Israel. And if by Arabs invading Israel you're refering to the 1967 war, then it was the Israeli's who began the war, not the Egyptians.
"We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him (Nasser) .” -- Former Israeli PM Menahem Begin.
Menahem Begin, the first Likud Prime Minister of Israel, also said: “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde on 28 February 1968.
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997.
Your original post is completly devoid of anything resembling sense. It's just pure guff from beginning to end. And the post I'm currently commenting on is full of nothing but sheer nonsense and blatant lies.
International law? Who needs it when we have America and Israel policing the world, right? Nevermind that Israel is an international pariah and currently in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions.
Your comment is a lie.
Why do you support the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
and btw, there was no attempted 'genocide' by either side. Don't use that word lightly. Yes, Arab nations tried to destroy Israel in 1948 but I wouldn't call that genocide.
And no ehtnic cleansing, murderous aggresive and racist nation would ever be made up of 20 percent of the ethnic group they are enemies with.
Security fences? Checkpoints? It makes me sick that people have to go through these hardships just to go to work or see family. But unfortunately we live in a world where 'terrorism' (or whatever you want to call it) exists. People are killed, attacks happen, so it is every country's responsibility to protect its citizens.
Who exactly within the U.K supports boycotts? You think anyone but a small handfull of people educated on this issue support it?
And It's not irrational at all. Academic boycotts are the very least of the punishments that should be imposed upon Israel in order to make it begin abiding by international law and withdraw from the occupied territories. Strict sanctions should be imposed on them, and if that fails then a coalition of armed force should be alligned against them in the same manner as it was against Iraq in 1991.
No they didn't. Arab nations tried to reclaim the land stolen by Israel after the failure of partition, and after Israel chose to seize even more than the 56% of Palestinian land alloted to it by the U.N mandate.
Ethnic cleansing of Palestine occured in 1948 and is continuing today. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact, supported by all serious scholars in the field. Maybe you'd like to read the following book if you're in any way confused on this point.
http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215955329&sr=8-1
From a readers review:
'..Pappe writes of the Israelis' March 1948 plan for evicting the Palestinians, "The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be employed to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and, finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."
Between 30 March and 15 May 1948, i.e. before any Arab government intervened, Israeli forces seized 200 villages and expelled 250,000 Palestinians. The Israeli leadership stated, "The principal objective of the operation is the destruction of Arab villages ... the eviction of the villagers." On 9 April, Israeli forces massacred 93 people, including 30 babies, at Deir Yassin. In Haifa, the Israeli commander ordered, "Kill any Arab you encounter."'
And as for the rights of Arabs within Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
'The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Although the Jewish majority’s awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted, both within the Arab sector and outside it, and by official assessments, as a chief cause of agitation.
The 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices[188] notes that:
* "Approximately 93 percent of land in the country was public domain, including that owned by the state and some 12.5 percent owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). All public land by law may only be leased, not sold. The JNF's statutes prohibit the sale or lease of land to non-Jews. In October, civil rights groups petitioned the High Court of Justice claiming that a bid announcement by the Israel Land Administration (ILA) involving JNF land was discriminatory in that it banned Arabs from bidding."
* "Israeli-Arab advocacy organizations have challenged the Government's policy of demolishing illegal buildings in the Arab sector, and claimed that the Government was more restrictive in issuing building permits in Arab communities than in Jewish communities, thereby not accommodating natural growth."
* "In June, the Supreme Court ruled that omitting Arab towns from specific government social and economic plans is discriminatory. This judgment builds on previous assessments of disadvantages suffered by Arab Israelis."
* "Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged as discriminatory the 1996 "Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel," which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab towns."
* "Israeli Arabs were not required to perform mandatory military service and, in practice, only a small percentage of Israeli Arabs served in the military. Those who did not serve in the army had less access than other citizens to social and economic benefits for which military service was a prerequisite or an advantage, such as housing, new-household subsidies, and employment, especially government or security-related industrial employment. The Ivri Committee on National Service has issued official recommendations to the Government that Israel Arabs not be compelled to perform national or "civic" service, but be afforded an opportunity to perform such service".
* "According to a 2003 Haifa University study, a tendency existed to impose heavier prison terms to Arab citizens than to Jewish citizens. Human rights advocates claimed that Arab citizens were more likely to be convicted of murder and to have been denied bail."
* "The Orr Commission of Inquiry's report […] stated that the 'Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,' that the Government 'did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner.' As a result, 'serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"
The 2007 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices notes that:
* "According to a 2005 study at Hebrew University, three times more money was invested in education of Jewish children as in Arab children."
Human Rights Watch has charged that cuts in veteran benefits and child allowances based on parents' military service discriminate against Arab children: "The cuts will also affect the children of Jewish ultra-orthodox parents who do not serve in the military, but they are eligible for extra subsidies, including educational supplements, not available to Palestinian Arab children."
According to The Guardian, in 2006 just 5% of civil servants were Arabs, many of them hired to deal with other Arabs, despite the fact that Arab citizens of Israel comprise 20% of the population.
Although the Bedouin infant mortality rate is still the highest in Israel, and one of the highest in the developed world, The Guardian reports that in the 2002 budget, Israel's health ministry allocated Arab communities less than 0.6% of its budget for healthcare facility development.'
Israel would be better equipped to protect it's citizens if it withdrew to the 1967 border rather than trying to defend scattered settlements across the West bank and Gaza. It could then establish along it's border any fortifications and barriers it liked in order to protect it's citizens.
From 'Beyond Chutzpah - On the misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History' - Norman Finkelstein:
'Under brutal economic and military sieges a year after Israel's so-called disengagement, Gaza was "dying...it's people are on the edge of starvation...A whole society is being destroyed. There are 1.5 million Palestinians imprisoned in the most heavily poulated area in the world" (Patrick Cockburn); "in it's worst condition ever...The Israeli army has been rampaging through Gaza - there's no other word to describe it - killing and demolishing, bombing and shelling indiscriminately...This is disgraceful and shocking collective punishment...Frightened children, traumatized by what they have seen, huddle in their homes with a horror in their eyes that is difficult to describe in words...No security excuse can explain the cycle of madness, and no civic argument can excuse the outrageous silence of us all" (Gideon Levy). And predictably, Gaza stood poised on the brink of fratricidal civil war. "The experiment was a success: The Palestinians are killing each other," Amira Hass wryly observed. "They are behaving as expected at the end of the extended experiment called 'what happens when you imprison 1.5 million human beings in an enclosed space like battery hens.'
I had her first....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I think my favorite part was when the OP mentioned that Byrnzie has no idea what's going on in the Middle East...
As far as I can tell, the OP needs to step back into reality for a few seconds...
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You think the European media is Anti-Israel? And that the U.S media offers a balanced view? Are you serious?
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/bbcmisleading.html
'The BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "incomplete" and "misleading", including failing to adequately report the hardships of Palestinians living under occupation, an independent review commissioned by the corporation's board of governors has found.
The report urges the BBC to be bolder in setting a policy for using the word "terrorism" to describe acts of violence perpetrated against either side and suggests a senior editorial figure should be appointed to "give more secure planning, grip and oversight".
The latest of several reports into contentious areas of the BBC's news provision, it praised the quality of much of its coverage and found "little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias" but listed a series of "identifiable shortcomings".
Chaired by the British Board of Film Classification president, Sir Quentin Thomas, the review said output failed to consistently "constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture".
The panel, which also included former ITN chief executive Professor Stewart Purvis, said the BBC should not let its own requirements of balance and impartiality become a "straitjacket" that prevented it from properly relaying the "dual narrative" of both sides.
In particular, it highlighted a "failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation".
On the emotive issue of whether acts of violence perpetrated against either side should be called "terrorism", the review said the BBC should use the term because it is "clear and well understood" and that once it had decided on a policy for the correct use of language it should be more consistent in applying it.
Like other major media organisations, the BBC regularly deals with a flood of complaints from both sides.
An internal BBC News review, led by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen, led to greater resources being allocated to the Middle East and the appointment of a specific editor, veteran foreign correspondent Jeremy Bowen. But the review said more should be done to provide a stronger editorial "guiding hand".
The BBC should do more to put the conflict in context for viewers, it said. This could include doing more to direct viewers to resources offering more depth and background. Too often, it suggested, news stories were chosen on the basis of the pictures available to accompany them.
The recommendations met with some disquiet among BBC News managers, who felt the appointment of a senior editorial figure to oversee all output on the topic would contradict the findings of a review following the Hutton inquiry.
"We are confident we have the right editorial structures and processes in place to provide high quality, impartial journalism and to ensure we continue to make progress in developing the authority and comprehensiveness of our output," said BBC News management in a statement.
The Council for Arab-British Understanding said "the panel quite correctly highlighted that there was little reporting of the difficulties faced by Palestinians in their daily lives".
Daniel Shek, of the British Israel Communications & Research Centre, said: "The report argues that the Israelis and Palestinians are not on equal terms, since the Israelis possess a fully functioning state and the Palestinians do not. It then implies that an imbalance in BBC coverage could be acceptable. If such an argument absolves the BBC from offering balanced reporting then it is a slippery slope towards biased coverage."
Deadly Distortion
Associated Press Coverage of
Israeli and Palestinian Deaths
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html
'...In 2004, there were 141 reports in AP headlines or first paragraphs of Israeli deaths. During this time, there had actually been 108 Israelis killed (the discrepancy is due to the fact that a number of Israeli deaths were reported multiple times).
percentage of deaths reported by AP
During the same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported in headlines or first paragraphs. During this time, 821 Palestinians had actually been killed.4
In other words, 131% of Israeli deaths and 66% of Palestinian deaths were reported in AP headlines or first paragraphs.
That is, AP reported prominently on Israeli deaths at a rate 2.0 times greater than Palestinian deaths.
In reality, 7.6 times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis in 2004.
II. Coverage of Children’s Deaths
9 Israeli children’s deaths were reported in the headlines or first paragraphs of AP articles on the Israel/Palestine conflict in 2004, when 8 had actually occurred. During the same period only 27 out of 179 Palestinian children’s deaths were reported. (Children are defined by international law as those who are 17 and younger.)
Additionally, Palestinian children made up a disproportionately large number of Palestinian deaths in general. Children’s deaths accounted for 21.8% of the Palestinians killed, while children’s deaths accounted for only 7.4% of Israelis killed during this period.
actual number of children killed
actual number of children killed
22 times more Palestinian children were killed than Israeli children.
AP reported on 113% of Israeli children’s deaths in headlines or first paragraphs, while reporting on only 15% of Palestinian children’s deaths.
That is, Israeli children’s deaths were reported at a rate 7.5 times greater than Palestinian children’s deaths.
Comparing running totals for actual deaths and reported deaths once again reveals that while AP’s reporting on Israeli children’s deaths closely tracks the reality, the reporting on Palestinian children’s deaths lags far behind the actual number, following a path similar to Israeli children’s deaths. This is in stark contradiction to the reality, in which Palestinian children were being killed at a rate over 22 times greater than Israeli children.
In order to discover the impact of repetitions on the study, we examined AP’s coverage of children’s deaths without counting repetitions. We found that AP repeated two Israeli children’s deaths once, and one Palestinian child’s death three times. Hence, not counting repetitions, AP covered 88% of Israeli children’s deaths – a rate of coverage 6.5 times greater than their coverage of Palestinian children’s deaths (of which AP covered 13%.)
III. “Clashes” – A Case Study of AP’s Diction
Many qualitative observations may be made about bias in news coverage. One interesting aspect is the terminology used by a news source in reporting on this conflict. We examined AP’s usage of the words “clash” and “clashes”. Of all the conflict deaths AP reported in 2004, 47 deaths were stated to have taken place during a clash. Every one of those 47 was a Palestinian death, which suggests a more unilateral violence than the word is commonly understood to convey.'
More on media bias in favour of Israel:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/bias.html
I notice that your first post on the message pit is on the Israel/Palestine issue. Weird!
He came to a gun fight with a roll of toilet paper.
Yes, in some twisted, imaginary world, it's important for people to save face on an internet message board.
It's apparent that people will only believe what they choose, and will achieve that end with a copy/paste filibuster rather than with their own wits.
If that's what you call a "gun fight", then by all means feel as proud as you like to be a "respected" moving train contributer, lol.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
It's just that I back what I say with source material and evidence, as opposed to just spouting unsubstantiated gibberish, and lies. That's all.
I blame it on my education. Maybe you should try getting one yourself sometime.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
http://www.mininova.org/tor/819069