Why is Israel such taboo, so untouchable and immune to criticism?

2

Comments

  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    farfromglorified wrote:
    They're not. They never have been. Where did you get that idea?

    Yeas they are. Maybe not on threads such as this, or even on such things as the BBC's 'have your say' section where members of the public are allowed to post their comments on various topics. However, in the mainstream media there is never any direct criticism of Israel. I live in England where the news media is a lot less restricted and censured than in the U.S and yet I can't recall ever hearing anyone on the t.v criticising Israel. A few of our newspapers - The Independent, The Guardian - often criticise Israel and discuss it's crimes against it's neighbours, but I've never heard anyone on the t.v, or on the BBC News website do the same. I think Chomsky is right in saying that there is a democratic deficit - a huge gap between public opinion and public policy. It's often amazing to read the opinions of people on the 'have your say' section on the BBC News website and compare it to the softened, pro-Israel biased main page articles.

    JUAN GONZALEZ: I would like to ask you, in terms of this whole issue of democracy, in your book you talk about the democracy deficit. Obviously, the Bush administration is having all kinds of problems with their -- even their model of democracy around the world, given the election results in the Palestinian territories, the situation now in Iraq, where the President is trying to force out the Prime Minister of the winning coalition there, in Venezuela, even in Iran. Your concept of the democracy deficit, and why this administration is able to hold on in the United States itself?

    NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there are two aspects of that. One is, the democracy deficit internal to the United States, that is, the enormous and growing gap between public opinion and public policy. Second is their so-called democracy-promotion mission elsewhere in the world. The latter is just pure fraud. The only evidence that they're interested in promoting democracy is that they say so. The evidence against it is just overwhelming, including the cases you mentioned and many others. I mean, the very fact that people are even willing to talk about this shows that we're kind of insisting on being North Koreans: if the Dear Leader has spoken, that establishes the truth; it doesn't matter what the facts are. I go into that in some detail in the book.

    The democracy deficit at home is another matter. How have -- I mean, they have an extremely narrow hold on political power. Their policies are strongly opposed by most of the population. How do they carry this off? Well, that's been through an intriguing mixture of deceit, lying, fabrication, public relations. There's actually a pretty good study of it by two good political scientists, Hacker and Pierson, who just run through the tactics and how it works. And they have barely managed to hold on to political power and are attempting to use it to dismantle the institutional structure that has been built up over many years with enormous popular support -- the limited benefits system; they’re trying to dismantle Social Security and are actually making progress on that; to the tax cuts, overwhelmingly for the rich, are creating -- are purposely creating a future situation, first of all, a kind of fiscal train wreck in the future, but also a situation in which it will be virtually impossible to carry out the kinds of social policies that the public overwhelmingly supports.

    And to manage to carry this off has been an impressive feat of manipulation, deceit, lying, and so on. No time to talk about it here, but actually my book gives a pretty good account. I do discuss it in the book. That's a democratic deficit at home and an extremely serious one. The problems of nuclear war, environmental disaster, those are issues of survival, the top issues and the highest priority for anyone sensible. Third issue is that the U.S. government is enhancing those threats. And a fourth issue is that the U.S. population is opposed, but is excluded from the political system. That's a democratic deficit. It's one we can deal with, too.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Yeas they are. Maybe not on threads such as this, or even on such things as the BBC's 'have your say' section where members of the public are allowed to post their comments on various topics. However, in the mainstream media there is never any direct criticism of Israel.

    What? I've seen numerous reports of massacres by Israel in the last two weeks. I've seen numerous reports detailing the words of politicians and pundits condemning Israel's actions. Certainly the mainstream media rarely supports the actions of Hezbollah or terrorist groups and often in turn portray Israel as more of a victim than they are, but to pretend that nothing critical of Israel ever hits the mainstream media is ludicrous.
    I live in England where the news media is a lot less restricted and censured than in the U.S and yet I can't recall ever hearing anyone on the t.v criticising Israel.

    Ok. I can't speak to that, but I've certainly heard people critical of Israel on the BBC's broadcasts here in the States.
    A few of our newspapers - The Independent, The Guardian - often criticise Israel and discuss it's crimes against it's neighbours, but I've never heard anyone on the t.v, or on the BBC News website do the same.

    Ok. So then there are media outlets that do criticize Israel.
    I think Chomsky is right in saying that there is a democratic deficit - a huge gap between public opinion and public policy. It's often amazing to read the opinions of people on the 'have your say' section on the BBC News website and compare it to the softened, pro-Israel biased main page articles.

    I think your problem and Chomsky's problem is the gab between your opinions and public policy. I cannot speak for England, but here in the States there is much more support for Israel among the general population than there is support for Israel's enemies.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    sliverstain wrote:
    The UN harasses Israel?

    Could you please expand. Interesting premise.

    Taken from an earlier post by WindNoSail:
    OUT OF 175 UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS UP TO 1990, 97 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL; OUT OF 690 GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS, 429 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL

    Put into a world context, this is sheer harassment. Yes, Israel has done many things that deserve to be addressed in the UN. However, MANY nations are guilty of wartime atrocities, occupying territory "illegally", etc. Why is Israel so disproportionately targeted in the UN? Its a joke. Where are the 400 plus resolutions against the Arabs in Sudan who are committing genocide? Or against the Hutus in Rwanda back in the late 90s? Or against the Indonesians for military repression of East Timor? This is laughable. The UN is being incredibly selective here. Israel is one nation. It does not merit this much attention ... The Muslim world uses the UN to harass the Israelis, and European nations let this happen.
    I am not trying to portray Israel as some totally innocent victim, either, so let's keep this rational. All I am saying is that the UN takes a biased approach to Israeli-Arab issues, while it sweeps other pressing concerns under the rug (especially when said pressing concerns involve Muslim nations, like Sudan or Indonesia).
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Yeas they are. Maybe not on threads such as this, or even on such things as the BBC's 'have your say' section where members of the public are allowed to post their comments on various topics. However, in the mainstream media there is never any direct criticism of Israel. I live in England where the news media is a lot less restricted and censured than in the U.S and yet I can't recall ever hearing anyone on the t.v criticising Israel. A few of our newspapers - The Independent, The Guardian - often criticise Israel and discuss it's crimes against it's neighbours, but I've never heard anyone on the t.v, or on the BBC News website do the same. I think Chomsky is right in saying that there is a democratic deficit - a huge gap between public opinion and public policy. It's often amazing to read the opinions of people on the 'have your say' section on the BBC News website and compare it to the softened, pro-Israel biased main page articles.

    So basically, your beef is that not all newspapers are biased against Israel? Stick to the Guardian, then. They've been doing a bang-up job of singing Hizbollah's praises these days.
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Taken from an earlier post by WindNoSail:
    OUT OF 175 UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS UP TO 1990, 97 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL; OUT OF 690 GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS, 429 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL

    Put into a world context, this is sheer harassment. Yes, Israel has done many things that deserve to be addressed in the UN. However, MANY nations are guilty of wartime atrocities, occupying territory "illegally", etc. Why is Israel so disproportionately targeted in the UN? Its a joke. Where are the 400 plus resolutions against the Arabs in Sudan who are committing genocide? Or against the Hutus in Rwanda back in the late 90s? Or against the Indonesians for military repression of East Timor? This is laughable. The UN is being incredibly selective here. Israel is one nation. It does not merit this much attention ... The Muslim world uses the UN to harass the Israelis, and European nations let this happen.
    I am not trying to portray Israel as some totally innocent victim, either, so let's keep this rational. All I am saying is that the UN takes a biased approach to Israeli-Arab issues, while it sweeps other pressing concerns under the rug (especially when said pressing concerns involve Muslim nations, like Sudan or Indonesia).

    You shouldnt just focus on how many...take into account exactly how many get passed?????

    How many get vetoed by the USA????

    Yes there is an abundance of resolutions but how many get passed? Based on how many actually see the next stage I will say Israel is far from being harassed....as for the other nations I am on the same page as you...I just think the US has been protecting Israel from the UN too much in SOME circumstances.....
  • The Illinoisemakers
    The Illinoisemakers Posts: 461
    sliverstain wrote:
    The UN harasses Israel?

    Could you please expand. Interesting premise.

    Since the UN was established in 45, I think, almost 60% of all sanctions handed down have been against Israel. Its something like 450 out of 700. Harassment? You be the judge.
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    The Illinoisemakers wrote:
    Since the UN was established in 45, I think, almost 60% of all sanctions handed down have been against Israel. Its something like 450 out of 700. Harassment? You be the judge.

    Maybe they were deserved....just a hunch....let see the details on what they entitle....instead of just showing numbers.... I would like to see the details....
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    You shouldnt just focus on how many...take into account exactly how many get passed?????

    How many get vetoed by the USA????

    Yes there is an abundance of resolutions but how many get passed? Based on how many actually see the next stage I will say Israel is far from being harassed....as for the other nations I am on the same page as you...I just think the US has been protecting Israel from the UN too much in SOME circumstances.....

    The US veto is probably a good thing in at least some of these cases, though. If you look at the text of these resolutions, a lot of them deserve to be vetoed, and even non-American member nations have voted against some of the more extreme examples.
    As is often the case, a balance needs to be struck. Perhaps the U.S. is too "veto-happy". Perhaps it would be less so if the quality of the resolutions was better.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    Maybe they were deserved....just a hunch....let see the details on what they entitle....instead of just showing numbers.... I would like to see the details....

    I will see what I can dig up.
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I will see what I can dig up.

    Sounds fair enough...instead of looking at numbers we should look at the details of the resoluton and see what sort of substance exists....
  • The Illinoisemakers
    The Illinoisemakers Posts: 461
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    Maybe they were deserved....just a hunch....let see the details on what they entitle....instead of just showing numbers.... I would like to see the details....

    Here are a 100 resolutions against Israel. Enjoy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    Sounds fair enough...instead of looking at numbers we should look at the details of the resoluton and see what sort of substance exists....

    Here's a link:

    http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

    Most of them are "condemnations" for various specific actions by the IDF. Condemnations are basically harassment. Most third-world countries could have been targeted with a similar number of these very specific condemnations.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Oh, and please disregard the piece's irritating use of quotes around the word Israel.
    :)
  • boxwine_in_hell
    boxwine_in_hell Posts: 1,263
    The reason Arab nations don't fuck with Israel is because Israel kicks their asses repeatedly in wars. If you live on what is essentially an island surrounded by people who want to destroy you, you better have a good military if you want to survive. Israel has taken this idea to heart.
    one foot in the door
    the other foot in the gutter
    sweet smell that they adore
    I think I'd rather smother
    -The Replacements-
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Oh, and please disregard the piece's irritating use of quotes around the word Israel.
    :)

    Yeah some but I see lots of repeats as well....however I would think that some are indeed justified...some like I said look like repeats....but I would like to read the details...you cannot judge a book by its cover....
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    boxwine_in_hell wrote:
    The reason Arab nations don't fuck with Israel is because Israel kicks their asses repeatedly in wars. If you live on what is essentially an island surrounded by people who want to destroy you, you better have a good military if you want to survive. Israel has taken this idea to heart.

    No Israel is backed by the largest military power in the world...that could be another reason....and if they really "kicked their asses" they wouldn't be in these positions they routinely find themselves in....
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Here's a link:

    http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

    Most of them are "condemnations" for various specific actions by the IDF. Condemnations are basically harassment. Most third-world countries could have been targeted with a similar number of these very specific condemnations.

    This was such an entertaining read. I'm going to start a club and issue random "condemnations", "urges", "deplorations", "demands", and "censures" against posters here. And I'm going to pretend that those statements have some kind of backing. Sounds fun.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    No Israel is backed by the largest military power in the world...that could be another reason....and if they really "kicked their asses" they wouldn't be in these positions they routinely find themselves in....

    Militarily speaking, Israel really has kicked some ass. They've won large wars against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. But that's not the point, I don't think. The point is, what can Israel do now to make some semblance of peace with its neighbors?
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    farfromglorified wrote:
    This was such an entertaining read. I'm going to start a club and issue random "condemnations", "urges", "deplorations", "demands", and "censures" against posters here. And I'm going to pretend that those statements have some kind of backing. Sounds fun.

    Exactly my point!
    Let's start with silverstain, by the way. ;)
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Militarily speaking, Israel really has kicked some ass. They've won large wars against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. But that's not the point, I don't think. The point is, what can Israel do now to make some semblance of peace with its neighbors?

    Well we will see...

    I for one do not think that this warfare as bettered the Missle East as from what I have seen....

Categories