Thursday, July 1, 2010

IDF soldier: Palesatinians prefer to live under occupation

Posted by at

5 comments:

  1. vzaJuly 1, 2010 at 9:02 AM

    From The NYT!
    The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is widely acknowledged to be unsustainable and costly to the country’s image. But one more blunt truth must be acknowledged: the occupation is morally repugnant.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/opinion/01kristof.html?_r=2&hp

    ReplyDelete
  2. thankgodimatheistJuly 1, 2010 at 6:59 PM

    <span>Thanks vza...This is as far as a NYT journalist can take it to criticise Israel which is very little and incessantly counterbalanced with apologetics and yes lies..as when he seems to  justify the settlers attacks by mentioning Palestinian violence(throwing stones) as a reason of sorts..</span>

    ReplyDelete
  3. thankgodimatheistJuly 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM

    Sullivan's retort to Kristof:
    How Is This Not Apartheid?

    These Palestinian Arabs were subject to constant harassment and violence from the Jewish settlers nearby. Kristof adds every caveat - about security, about double-standards, etc. But I fail to see how this kind of governing system, brutally punishing people for being the wrong ethnicity and religion and using the apparatus of the state to impoverish and marginalize them, is somehow in a different moral zone than apartheid. Could a reader mount a case for a clear difference? I think even parts of Soweto were allowed to access the national grid.
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/how-is-this-not-apartheid.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. thankgodimatheistJuly 1, 2010 at 7:09 PM

    Shmuel, an Israeli contributor/commentator on Mondo has this very interesting comment on Kristof's piece:
    Kristof’s heart is obviously in the right place, and he does describes some of the suffering and inequality, but I find his replies to the Israel arguments completely inadequate – to the point of creating a “two-sides to the story” impression, with a preponderance of sympathy (but not facts) for the Palestinians.
    1. Double standard. I know he was trying to pre-empt his critics, but the double standard (especially in the NYT) is actually the other way around. Just look at the unqualified condemnation Kristof and his paper have levelled at Sudan over Darfur. How many other human rights violations are as disputed, whitewashed or ignored in the US MSM – and the NYT – as I/P (except when the abuses are Palestinian, of course)? The ally/arms explanation is not bad, but it strikes me as rather inadequate – certainly as a pre-emptive response to pro-Israel flak.
    2. Easing checkpoints – This is something that Israel constantly waves around. Kristof denounces the system as “intrinsically malignant”, but fails to explain why. The less-than-informed NYT reader (LTINYTR) is left with the fact that there have been “real improvements”, and some vague and unsubstantiated sympathy for the Palestinians, but no real idea of the apartheid-like restrictions on movement that still affect every aspect of Palestinian life (e.g. he doesn’t mention the wall). Kristof also follows the latest fashion of pretending that Gaza doesn’t exist.
    3. Palestinian violence – Some incidents, some settlers killed, some “rock-throwing clashes between Arabs and Israelis”, the army does its best to keep the Palestinians away from the settlements. Not a word on how the settlers got there, whose land they stole, Palestinians killed by settlers and the army, the total imbalance of power and suffering, the far from impartial role played by the army.
    4. Model projects – solar panels and video cameras. Disappointing that Kristof felt the need to provide hope and an upbeat message. Such things may make a difference in the lives of a few individuals, but absolutely no difference in terms of the larger, more representative picture he describes in the rest of the article. LTINYTR is thrown off-track. Kristof has again tried to mitigate his message. Things aren’t so bad. Travel is freer, settlers are under control AND an Israeli NGO provides free electricity! So why all the sympathy and kvetching?

    ReplyDelete
  5. thankgodimatheistJuly 1, 2010 at 7:09 PM

    5. Israeli security concerns – Who said anything about “relinquishing the WB”? There’s nothing about that in the rest of the article. The LTINYTR will fill in the blanks however, and associate the abuses Kristof does describe with Israel’s “real security concerns” mentioned in the closing sentence. Kristof even says the Israelis have a point! So we are left with “real security” vs. “the occupation is wrong”. A crying shame. Can’t be helped. So why does Kristof give the Palestinians so much inexplicable sympathy (asks our LTINYTR)? Must be an anti-Semite.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)