Israel & the Palestinians

How does this photo make you feel about the situation?

 

It's fairly meaningless if you think in terms of context and the broader social, political and historical situations. There are plenty of pictures of Palestinian terrorism against the Israelis, and of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, but pictures don't tell a story alone....

 

Dont need that Photo many jews here they think they own part of this place and act like hitler mainly orthodox jews who are just as bad as the Nazis.

 

How true. And how ironic as it was your signature pic which prompted me to post this.

 

My signature is also, tragically, ironic. Freedom is not just a stone's throw away, and the situation is far more complex than a simple picture can tell....

 

Whilst I deplore the actions of the Israeli government, and the occupation that the Palestinian people find themselves living under, I don't think you could compare the Israelis to Nazis. More importantly, one should not confuse the actions of the state of Israel with the Jewish people in general, as that borders on anti-semitism. I know many Jews who are very critical of Israel and want freedom for the Palestinian people as much as anyone else....

 

I've seen some people on anti-war demonstrations carrying pictures of the Israeli flag with the star of David turned into a swastika. I would never march under that banner because I think it oversimplifies the issue and sends all the wrong messages....

 

OK THE JAPANASE INPERIAL ARMY

 

Indeed. First of all, what do these two pictures depict?

 

If that question wasn't rhetorical, then I'm imagining that your picture is of a Palestinian bomb on an Israeli bus/vehicle - an abhorrent action which I'd be the first to condemn. The oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli military does not justify attacks against civillians. My picture is of a Palestinian child throwing a stone at an Israeli tank in the occupied territories. It's a common phenomenon, and one which has led to the death of quite a few Palestinian children to Israeli gunfire. Unfortunately, as the experience of Western journalists in the region show, the Israeli army is a little too trigger happy, and is not unknown to engage in actions of collective punishment in reprisal for Palestinian suicide bomb attacks on their civillians....

 

Interesting. Not correct, but not the common misconception either. I wonder if you'd have reached the same conclusion if the context I'm posting in didn't tip you off that it's a trick question.

Here's how the world's press spun it:

 

And here's the truth.

Now regarding your picture. If someone's driving a tank, and a young boy decides to throw a rock at it, does that automatically make the tank driver an aggressor? One thing's for sure - it makes for a great photo-opportunity.

 

I was going by the explosion in the background. And, in my eyes, the tank driver is the aggressor. The tank is in an occupied territory. The act of occupation is an act of aggression. If Britain was occupied by a foreign power, would you not try to resist within your own means? This is not to deny the existence of the state of Israel. But it is to highlight the everyday military occupation that is a fact of life for Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. Even if the tank driver were not the aggressor, sticks and stones won't break armour plating, and would it not be a wholly disproportionate response to fire on the children?

 

And you're quite right with the article, there are two sides to every story. Even when, after careful judgement, I come down on one side or another, you will never find me denying that....

 

Indeed they won't. So why on earth would someone even bother throwing them? It serves no purpose other than a "David and Goliath" photo-op.

Yes, indeed it would. And you're relying on accounts from the same western media that unanimously declared that that photo was an Israeli policeman beating up a Palestinian.

 

As I understood, it was the New York Times that reported that. Was it unanimous? But if the media make one mistake, are they wrong about everything? Of course not, but you're right, we do have to look at these issues as deeply as possible, and be critical and sceptical on reporting. But scepticism shouldn't mean cynicism. I've worked for ITN before, and have watched their production and editorial process. They are very keen to show a balance in all their reporting on sensitive issues like this, and not jump on bandwagons or sensationalise issues. I think we in Britain are lucky in that in terms of out broadcast media, certainly in comparison to American broadcast media. Personally I tend to go by reports from independent human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International, rather than simply what makes the headlines. Can I be certain that they are telling the truth? No, not 100% certain, if I was, I'd think there was something wrong with the world....

 

Good post though. Even if I disagree with your political stance, I agree with your critical approach....

 

During last protest here in the U.S the police beat, spray, inprison, question, recorded and black list so whats the big deal on being only in palestine

 

I would certainly oppose oppressive policies wherever they existed....

 

The question is no longer rhetorical. We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer – always at the expense of our liberty. But security and liberty go hand-in-hand. Members of Congress, like too many Americans, don’t understand that a society with no constraints on its government cannot be secure. History proves that societies crumble when their governments become more powerful than the people and private institutions.

Unfortunately, the new intelligence bill passed by Congress two weeks ago moves us closer to an encroaching police state by imposing the precursor to a full-fledged national ID card. Within two years, every American will need a “conforming” ID to deal with any federal agency – including TSA at the airport.

Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don’t believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority – all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don’t like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives.

Terror, fear, and crises like 9-11 are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The loss of liberty, we are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary. Many citizens believe that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. But this war is undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final goal. Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely?

Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops. The people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain – anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.

After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don’t have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I’m afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I’m afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I’m afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.

It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.

Those who believe a police state can't happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.