h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Pro Pal - really? As it happens, it is possible to be pro Palestinian state and Pro Israel at the same time. In the centre ground, I perceive little difference in actual desired outcomes, just some folks are the ones who believe Israel is responsible for the current inpasse while some believe the Arabs are responsible. The very pro Palestinian folks, who believe that Israel is a terrorist state, that it's Israel alone causing the Palestinian poverty, that they are committing genocide, are like Nazis, enforcing aparthied etc. are so wide of the mark one can only suspect anti-Semitism. While lots of folk claim that their anti-Israeli policy views do not reflect anti-Zionism or Anti-Semitism, they should recognise that Israel bashing has become the acceptable face of anti-Semitism in Europe now and that building their anti-Israel arguments on warped arguments sourced from dubious sources only reinforces that view, regardless of how pure their motives. For instance, during the Jenin incursion, the initial reports were of a massacre, 500+ Palestinians dead, genocide, deliberate executions of folks against walls, mass graves etc. And these reports were in the liberal broadsheets, the wider press, on the BBC. Commentary by the left wing intelligensia (and right wing in this case) talked of ethnic cleansing and made comparisons to everything from South Africa and Bosnia to the Nazis.

Of course, in the cold light of day, this all turned out to be nonsense. Even the UN (not known for its sympathy towards Israel, and one of the main sources of the initial 'massacre' stories), admitted much later that only around 54 Palestinians died, of which 20 were civilians, who were caught in crossfire when the 'militants' whom the IDF had come to arrest shot back (I got this in the Economist, though there are other sources). No mass graves, no massacre, no executions. All these stories were traced back to 'eye-witness' Palestinians. Fair play to them; they're fighting a battle. But for the UN, Red Cross, and the media to swallow all this rubbish without caveat or health-warnings and to publish it as fact.... either a lapse in journalistic standards on a massive combined scale - or an inherent bias. Of course, any apologies by the media were done so quietly nobody saw them. And when this bias happens time and time again, one can only suspect prejudice.

I'd be interested in being pointed to (and explained) articles on honestreporting.com that folks believe are as bias the other way.

Re bombers being well financed etc. well, Hamas etc are all incredibly well financed, probably from many sources including Syria and Iran (who openly admitting supporting these organisations). Fatah is of course part of the PA and this organisation gets its funding from donations from the EU mainly. Documentary evidence of EU funds being used to directly purchase terrorist weapons signed off by Arafat has been found on more than one occasion and is currently the source of much debate between Brussels and Israel. If I recall correctly, an investigation into the use EU funds was flatly rejected by the EU (and Chris Patten in particular) until evidence was so strong that 100+ MEPs signed a motion to force it (that's also from the Economist I think).

There was an interesting article I saw via Google News (I forget the source, though it was only last week) about middle class Gaza families sending their kids to school in the US to avoid them being press-ganged into 'martyrdom' squads by Hamas - this apparently was the biggest threat to their well being. Hamas had basically 'used up' the youth in the poorer parts of town a while ago. The article's words, not mine. Possibly biased...of course...

And of course, in an example from outside this particular conflict, the 9/11 bombers were university graduates backed by Bin Laden who of course is a multi-millionaire. I'm not saying *every* bomber is a graduate from a middle class background (I doubt all the Chechen terrorists are), but the organisations they come from *are* financially rich (given that they are usually state funded organised criminal gangs), and they are well trained. And they are most certainly not, as Cherie Blair put it, poor futureless souls with no hope, deserving of our sympathies. These folk, and the people who train/fund them, are indescrimate mass murderers who target civilian men, women and children, the more defenseless the better. And she wondered why the Jewish community in the UK was up-in-arms. Still, the easy-ride she got from the BBC and liberal press must make her fell better. If you want more evidence about the education and training on the bombers (in Israel and elsewhere), all you have to do is read the articles as they happen. Usually once the bombers have been i.d.ed it gives their background (even in the liberal press).

And don't forget that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah have all sworn to destroy Israel. There will be no peace unless moderate Palestinians reign in these groups.

And if anyone believes that solving the Palestinian/Israeli issue will halt, or even slow, the terrorism from Islamic fundamentalism (a view I hear all the time) then dream on. Even Arafat tried to distance himself from claims by Bin Laden that there was Al Quiera in Gaza/WB. I guarantee that when the Palestinian state is declared, whoever on the Arab side signs the deal will be called a traitor or infidel or w.t.t.e. and the fundamentalism will plough on regardless. After-all, it wasn't the Israel/Pal issue that started fundamentalism, so why should it stop it?

<>
That's a hang of a stretch, runner! Please provide evidence of that assertion... Onc again, I note the use of the term "Pal" - a derogatory term... If I was to refer to the "Frogs" instead of the French, it's the same thing!

Sorry, I was just using Pal as short-hand - I have never heard the phrase being used in a negative sense - none intended - and albeit not being a Palestinian, and henceforth not really in a position to judge, I would say that it is not equivalent to the word Frog, which anyway doesn't carry much venom, in the same way that I'm not offended by the term 'Le Rosbeef'!

Re criminal gangs; (a) in my book blowing up buses, causing explosions, smuggling arms, kidnap and terrorism in general constitutes illegal ergo they are criminals. Even suicide is against the law in most places. (b) Even members of Fatah who recently took members of their own PA hostage recognise the inherent corruption and misuse of funds endemic in the PA. (c) that Hamas etc are supported by Iran and Syria is public knowledge. (d) I think, though I'm not sure, membership of Hamas is illegal anyway. (e) that they are organised is also undebatable I'd have thought. (f) If you don't like the term gang I'll withdraw it, and use the term 'terrorists' then. And given their tactics of deliberate targeting and indescriminate murder of civilians is designed to cause terror, I'd don't think that term can be argued with.

I think your assertion: <<(c) that Hamas etc are supported by Iran and Syria is public knowledge.>> is at least arguable! I don't think it is really public knowledge at all. I happily concede they are terrorists, but your view seems to slot happily in with that of Mr Dubya Bush and his Neocons; that they are sponsored by the states next to be attacked - Iran and Syria - and that really *is* public knowledge.

runner wrote: "While lots of folk claim that their anti-Israeli policy views do not reflect anti-Zionism or Anti-Semitism, they should recognise that Israel bashing has become the acceptable face of anti-Semitism in Europe now and that building their anti-Israel arguments on warped arguments sourced from dubious sources only reinforces that view, regardless of how pure their motives."

So you're not quite saying that anti-Israel = anti-Semitism, but with shaky qualifiers. "Regardless of how pure their motives" it sounds like anyone who opposes the govt of Israel suffers guilt-by-association with unabashed anti-semites, as far as you're concerned.

"I'd be interested in being pointed to (and explained) articles on honestreporting.com that folks believe are as bias the other way."

A prominent link on honestreporting.com points to www.israelpetition.com. I can't tell exactly how the two websites are related, but at the bottom of Israel Petition page is a logo for honestreporting.com. Parts of the petition read "I support Israel in its relentless search for security and peace, through decades of effort and concessions, despite aggression against its very existence." "I support Israel the sole democracy in the Middle East, for upholding Western ideals of freedom of expression, women's equality, a free market economy and minority representation in elected offices." "I support Israel in its effort to fight media bias, and to ensure that Israel receives the fair media coverage that every nation deserves."

Doesn't that demonstrate bias? Or can you link to an opinionated petition (they might actually host the petition) without having bias? Like NBC news could claim to present balanced political coverage while publicizing a petition saying they support George Bush?

"The very pro Palestinian folks, who believe that Israel is a terrorist state, that it's Israel alone causing the Palestinian poverty, that they are committing genocide, are like Nazis, enforcing aparthied etc. are so wide of the mark one can only suspect anti-Semitism."

What you're actually doing is accusing anti-Semitism with qualifiers, so that if you were pressed you could back out of the assertion. "I didn't say they were anti-Semites, I said one can only suspect anti-Semitism." Big difference.

In any logical debate, on either sides of the issue, we should address specific problems (policies that were wrong, crimes that were committed) and avoid claiming to know the motivations of our opponents or public figures. For example, if one believes that Yassir Arafat has committed crimes or just has bad policies, it doesn't matter whether he does it because he's an evil guy or because he's a well-intentioned guy who doesn't understand the outcomes. It just matters that the policies or crimes be proven and rectified.

If one believes that Ariel Sharon has committed war crimes in the past and that his current assassination policies violate international law, then one need not argue that he's evil. One just gives evidence of the crimes, pushes for justice to be done to Sharon and Arafat and anyone else needing it, and ignore the motivations for their transgressions, because the motivations are moot.

What we find in discussions and debates is that people can't put forward the evidence, or they don't want to because it's shaky, or because both sides know about the evidence and they can't get past it, so sometimes we make claims about motivations of our opponents or motivations of the major figures. I can't psychically tell what my mother or wife are thinking from one moment to the next, or why they do the things they do. How can I know Bush or Blair or Arafat? Why should anyone believe my inferences about the motivations of these people?

When you see someone arguing motivations behind big political issues, you know that logic is about to flee from the conversation.

I agree with lots of the above replies. It is possible to be anti-the-current-government-of-Israel and not be anti-Zionist, let alone anti-Semitic (for instance I reckon at least 50% of Israelis are, for a start). It may be also possible to be bias against Israel without being anti-Zionist. However, it all boils down to balance and double standards. If you (the newspaper, not the on-line debater) complain that Sharon is a war-criminal, then you should be complaining that Arafat is terrorist in the same breath (because, letters page excepting, there's no real come-back once something's in print). If you claim that the West Bank wall is devisive, then you also should be claiming the same about the stated aims of the organisations vowed to destroy Israel. When I see media do the first without doing the second, I think "Hang on a minute, that's not right", and when I see them do it time and time again, it hacks me off. I don't deny Sharon's past in the Lebanon is sketchy, and I understand the anger the Wall creates. And more importantly, by not demonstrating balance, papers are aligning themselves with those who don't because they are indeed anti-Zionist and/or anti-Semitic.

Re Iranian and Syrian support for the terrorist organisations - I'll dig up some proof when I have time, but Iran actually created Hezbollah - at least that what Perle and Frum claim - so I'll understand if you want a different source.

Perle and Frum? Oh, dear me, Perle especially, is one of Bush's Neocons! I am afraid I take what *he* says with several kilos of salt...