Friday, June 26, 2009

[palestinians] snow job on the western media

It's with great trepidation that I run this post because of my long association with a true friend, Cherry Pie. However, when something is distorted, such as things she was told [she'd hotly dispute this, of course], then something must be said in reply. I don't blame her for swallowing it but it really does need to be set straight.

... we had a talk from a member who had been on a sponsored visit to Palestine

... is what Cherie opened with. Now it's nothing against the noble trade union movement or Cherie's tireless work for it but really, one needs to step back a moment and analyse that line. A trade unionist sponsored by Hamas, in the sense that he'd never have been shown around if Hamas had not approved, came back to Britain and gave an 'unbiased' assessment of the situation? Now what sort of conclusions would he be likely to bring back from his Hamas enabled tour?

Here is one of his observations:

Even the school’s windows were boarded up as protection from Israeli bullets. This meant the classrooms, with 45 children, were suffocating hot in summer. The Palestinian people are being all being slowly suffocated - culturally and socially, as well as economically.

Again, step back and analyse this. Why would the Palestinians keep the children in that building with boarded up windows on a stinking hot day? Why wouldn't they find a safe place for the children underground - there are many such semi-dugouts. Why keep them suffering? The answer's obvious, isn't it? It wasn't the comfort and safety of the children at issue here but the western visitor. So the emotive language in 'the Palestinian people are being all being slowly suffocated' tugs at the heartstrings like a Fenian ditty - pity it's not based on evidence though.

Now, anyone who knows anything about missiles knows that boarded up windows are hardly likely to stop one and rifles would go through them like butter. It's the very assumption that the Israelis would fire indiscriminately at the windows which betrays Hamas's own mindset. Hamas knew all this but the western trade unionist still swallowed the whole story, then came back and reported it. Was there anyone there to ask the questions I'm now asking?

If you need evidence, then there is this video. Now one sees the true Palestinian leadership - not the least concern about the welfare of the children. Why were schools targetted by Israel? Because they were using schools to fire rockets at Israel. Look at the video again.

Then there is this:

The airport also has a system of stickers for the luggage. Jews get a 1 or a 2, EU passport holders get a 3 and Arabs get a 6. Anyone with 6 label has to have both a luggage search and a personal search conducted.

Why are the Arab bags labelled differently? The immediate knee-jerk reaction is, 'Oh, it's apartheid'. Actually, it's because the Arabs can't be trusted, based on events of the past few decades, not to send suicide bombers and not to do this sort of thing. Please look at the way the children are treated by their own armed forces.

Again, not my words.

So, coming back to the luggage stickers, let me ask you a question. Imagine you're a customs official and you know that weapons are going through. Would you not take particular care to check over a people who have, among them, known offenders? Where is the Jewish equivalent to this? That's right - it doesn't exist.

I've no doubt there is a lot of brutality in the treatment and I've already commented at Cherie's site about what I think of the Jewish character. However, the issue here is what is really happening to those Palestinian children.

Naturally, Nakba [May 15, 1948] gets a mention by the pro-Palestinians but conveniently, the events preceding it are never mentioned. Wiki takes up the story:

After the rejection of the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) that would have created an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side, five Arab states invaded the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attacked the state of Israel.

Now be sure of this – the Arabs rejected it. Here was the Israeli response:

The Jewish leadership accepted the partition plan as "the indispensable minimum," glad as they were with the international recognition but sorry that they did not receive more.

Having recruited a few thousand volunteers, al-Husayni organized the blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem.

Is that ever mentioned on the day of Nakba? Not on your life. Nor the next part:

On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel, and the 1948 Palestine war entered its second phase, with the intervention of several Arab states' armies the following day.

That makes the day of the invasion May 15th, 1948. Anything just a teensy bit significant about that date to you, vis a vis Nakba?

Moving on

What we've got here are highly emotional and unsubstantiated statements - systematic ill treatment, torture. Evidence?

“systematic ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children by Israeli authorities.”

This comes from someone called 'Gerard' who has the run of the Palestinian land, something he would never have if he were to report the truth.

'harsh Israeli jail'

Not just 'Israeli jail'. When it's Israeli, the adjective 'harsh' must be used. Do you know of any jail which is not harsh?

Aid

This is an article by a woman who visited the area, neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Arab. She says aid must get through and Israel must open up the borders for the convoys but then adds:

She also stated that "Hamas must respect that humanitarian aid cannot be diverted."

Therein lies the real problem. This is what's really going on:

There was a bit of head-scratching going on recently in the hallowed halls of the UN.

After weeks of rebuking Israel for preventing humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza, UN officials were forced to cancel deliveries of aid into the Hamas-controlled territory after terrorists broke into a UN Relief and Works Agency warehouse and made off with 800 tons of blankets, food and other basic commodities to sell them to the highest bidders.

Israeli officials have been saying all along that Hamas routinely diverts humanitarian aid. In April, fuel trucks destined for UNRWA warehouses were overtaken. It was reported in August that Hamas gunmen had hijacked more than 10 trucks destined for the Palestinian Red Crescent Society full of food and medical supplies.

All that is only more ironic given the worldwide castigation of Israel for allegedly preventing humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza during the military operation.

and:

At least 10 trucks with humanitarian aid sent to the Gaza Strip by the Jordanian Red Crescent Society were confiscated by Hamas police shortly after the trucks entered the territory on Thursday evening, according to aid officials in Jerusalem.

Eight trucks had food products and another two had medicines. They were reportedly taken to Hamas-run ministries.

Initial reports said the intended target of the aid was the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) in Gaza. Hamas and the PRCS had a run-in in the past, when the Islamic group diverted another aid convoy.

A spokesman for the Hamas police in Gaza said that the number of trucks was in fact 14 and they would be "delivered to Palestinians in need in the Gaza Strip."

Iran is even aware that the aid is not getting past Hamas.

What appeared in that trade unionist's talk was a highly slanted, Hamas approved take on what was happening, which simply does not accord with either the video or documentary evidence above [and that's but a portion].

Cherie's in a difficult position; she can say she's known these two people for a long time and they wouldn't lie. I'm not saying they are lying. I'm saying they've been duped because they wished to see the truth in these terms.

UPDATE SATURDAY

On the Egyptian side, 700 people and 10 trucks with medical aid from Arab countries were waiting to enter. Some 550 people waited to cross the other way, with priority given to those needing urgent medical treatment. Gaza has been blockaded by Israel, and much of the time by Egypt, for two years since Hamas took control there. Despite considerable criticism in the Arab world, the Egyptian government has kept Rafah largely shut since the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June 2007.

Interesting, eh? Why would Egypt, an Arab nation, supposedly in sympathy with the Palestinians, have done that for so long?

25 comments:

Mark Wadsworth said...

I heartily agree that anybody who writes piffle like "The Palestinian people are being all being slowly suffocated - culturally and socially, as well as economically." should be roundly abused.

I do wonder though, who gets a sticker for 4 or 5? If I were the Israelis I wouldn't automatically give somebody with a British passport a 3, I'd sort them into either 1's and 6's.

PS, butter won't go through boarded-up windows unless you melt it a bit first.

James Higham said...

PS, butter won't go through boarded-up windows unless you melt it a bit first.

Excellent point, Mark.

UBERMOUTH said...

Yet who are the Americans funding? And who the F*ck gave the Issraeilis the right to blockade the Palenstineans in their homeland, unable to even seek medical help,necessities, being placed under curfew etc.

And they wonder why they are being sniped at?[Not to mention they have far more weaponry than the Palestineans,more funding and the blind nod from the west]

JPT said...

James: I read Cherie's blogpost also and came to the same conclusions as yourself, which is a shame because i like her and her blog.

UBERMOUTH said...

This post and the subsequent comments denigrating Cherie's post and RIGHT to blog from a different perspective are offensive, belittling and chauvenistic.

Many, many people hold Cherie's views and her having different views to you three does not make her wrong or worthy of such lack of blogging etiquette.

I am surprised you'd allow this, James as I've alway considered you the ultimate blog host.

James Higham said...

Blogger won't accept the number of words in this reply so it will have to be done in three sections.

1

«This post and the subsequent comments denigrating Cherie's post and RIGHT to blog from a different perspective are offensive, belittling and chauvenistic. I am surprised you'd allow this, James as I've alway considered you the ultimate blog host.»

Emotion rather than facts, just as was alleged. When one doesn't have facts, one uses emotive terms like «denigrate». Most readers will have seen that the target is Hamas and I mentioned that the westerners have been duped, which they have.

Did you not watch the video clips? Did you not actually read the text? Come on, Uber, answer me point by point.

Nakba ……………? What, the Arab nations did not invade at precisely that time?

And what of the partition creating a Palestinian homeland which the Israelis agreed to but the Arabs rejected because they knew they were about to invade sovereign territory, territory they hadn't even been interested in before the turn of the century?

Your answer to that please ……………..?

Rockets. Just as Gordon Brown is pathologically incapable of saying the word «England», so the left leaning westerner is incapable of saying the word «rockets»..



«Yet who are the Americans funding?»

The Jews. And?

On the other hand, if you had an understanding of realpolitik, you'd know it is the people behind the throne who have been the trouble. In the old days it was Kissinger. At one stage it was Cheney. Google CFR, TLC, Round Table groups, Tavistock, CP, Bruderheist and read. Strife in the Middle-East is big business. Don't forget the Russians and the Chinese either.

As for the average American, he gets reportage which the Beeb refuses to run and he actually sees the CNN clips of how Hamas operate and Fatah and the rest of them. Israel is a tiny country and it is still, after all these years, fighting for its survival.

Could you explain why, Uber……………….?

James Higham said...

2

«And who the F*ck gave the Issraeilis the right to blockade the Palenstineans in their homeland, unable to even seek medical help,necessities, being placed under curfew etc.»

If you look at the clip of the mortars being fired from the international school, you have your answer. Any nation on earth which is militarily attacked has the right to defend itself, particularly if the original aggressor is one side.

This is a chicken and egg situation. Which came first? Which came first in Northern Ireland?

In the case of Israel, the original aggressors were the Arabs – read about 1947-8 again. The Arabs, Uber. Only the Arabs could fire daily rockets into another nation's sovereign territory, territory recognized internationally and by the UN, and still think it's quite OK and no one has a right to attack us.



«And they wonder why they are being sniped at?»

They don't wonder at all. The Arabs do not play fair. They want Israel off the face of the map and though it doesn't come out in speeches as much these days, still Ahmadinejad managed to come out and say precisely that.

When Hitler annexed the Sudetenland, when they invaded Poland, when intelligence gathering made it clear that Britain was on the list for occupation, when the Germans were on our doorstep, did Churchill say, 'Well we mustn't offend them because they're really nice guys, you know?'



«[Not to mention they have far more weaponry than the Palestineans,more funding and the blind nod from the west]»

Look, even Iran doesn't trust the Palestinians who go round killing each other when there are no Jews handy. Look at the way those soldiers in the video dragged those children into the human shield. The children would have been killed by the Israelis hitting a legitimate military target – they were firing rockets from that school, Uber.

Now, here's the deep cynicism of it. Hamas, knowing that the Israelis know that the school is a legit target, gather their own people to be slaughtered.

In Britain, we took a different approach – there was such a thing as an ARP officer and there were air raid warnings. People quickly went into shelters. That's how a civilized people do it.

Why did the Palestinians put their children in the firing line, at gun point? For only one possible reason – propaganda and propaganda is all this ever has been to them. They don't give a rat's arse about their own people.

Keeping those 45 kids in that school with boarded up windows on a hot day was an act of cruelty. And they try to blame Israel for that? Why did they fear Israeli bullets there? Because it was a military target. And who made a school a military target in the first place?

James Higham said...

3

«Many, many people hold Cherie's views»

Yes, many are taken in by the Palestinian propaganda, it's true. The majority would be dead against me for daring to question a lady who richly deserves her place in the blogosphere. I've never met anyone with purer motives, with the possible exception of you. I count both of you as friends.



«and her having different views to you three does not make her wrong or worthy of such lack of blogging etiquette.»

No, Uber, it has nothing to do with blogging etiquette and it's a shame you've tried to pull this fast one.

The rule in political blogging is that statements are made. If those statements are not true, then under the rules of political blogging, that is corrected by someone.

The only statement remotely ad hominem is Mark's. He uses the word piffle but he doesn't sheet it home to a person, he refers to the statement itself, which is piffle, after all.

Now, if you care to look at Cherie's post, you'll see it was piffle from that man. There was no ad hominem directed at Cherie.

In fact, pains have been taken by all who've commented NOT to attack Cherie per se. I said it a few times.

This blog's brief is the truth. If a statement appears that is wrong and it is pointed out, it is corrected. Most readers know I'm always doing that.

Or are you arguing for special rules for Cherie, something you never asked for yourself? I'm sure Cherie would be the last to ask for special consideration.

Finally, we're all big boys and girls. If we make a statement, we have to back it up. If that statement is on such a highly charged issue, then one must be very careful and be ready to wear whatever comes.

The only ad hominem here is yours against me [which I have no intention of deleting] but I'll live to fight another day.

Sackerson said...

You freeze the butter first, silly.

Lord T said...

It's not snow job on the western media. It's snow job BY the western media. They are in it up to their smelly hairy armpits.

The arabs are doing a good PR job on the Israelis using the palastinians and it's the gullible westerners who are untimately responsible for the palistinian childrens death. The west has shown that dead or maimed children brings outrage. So the arabs give them the show they want. Who else in the world would leave their children in the line of fire? Who else would send their children into a situation where they could end up dead and then go hysterical when they do?

I wouldn't let any of my kids go into danger and even if I couldn't move I would not send them to schools that were likely to get shot at. Why do they? It's not like they need an education. A five minute training session can show how to use a suicide vest and make mummy and daddy proud.

Until the west wakes up this will continue. And as far as I am concerned its gullible westerners fault.

James Higham said...

Ladies, why do you make me do the work for you? I've been waiting for you to come up with the white phosphorus bombs ....

UBERMOUTH said...

James,
Setting aside political differences...
Yes, everyone has a right to their opinion and to even correct what they see as errors/misinformation in other's blogs.
However the tone in this instance when doing so[and not just by you] was patronizing and demeaning towards Cherie.

Mark more than called her views 'piffle'. He quoted her and then stated that anyone making such statements should be 'roundly abused'!!!

JPT's 'shame I like her[Cherie] and her blog' is obviously a thinly veiled and patronizing condemnation because she dared express a different view, which in his opinion,CLEARLY, marginalized her as a person and her blog.
You , so content on the political issues, was just as patronizing in your text in reference to her without even noticing.

I have seen you treat people who covertly attack your posts with more dignity.

Let the record reflect that you are far better friends with Cherie than I, and you and I have an unbreakable bond.
Clearly this is not an attack on you personally but the tone and comments deemed acceptable by you in this post only. As you point out yourself, I have never asked for special treatment here for myself,not do I now for Cherie.

You know I do not believe in attacking anyone on their blog, but I ,at the same time,am not going to remain silent when another blogger IS denigrated on anyone's blog for having opposing views.

I will answer your questions point by point in a post on the matter on my blog. And if the 3 of you want to denigrate me-welcome-but do it on my blog, where I will kick all your asses!

As far as I am concerned all 3 of you owe Cherie an apology.

James Higham said...

Uber, let’s cut straight to the chase.

What has happened is that a certain number of wolves with slavering chops [who read this blog by RSS] saw a golden opportunity to drive a wedge between Cherie and me and between you and me.

The only annoyance in any of my comments on this issue has been with your statements but that doesn’t mean there is a rift. I wouldn’t give them the satisfaction.

Ditto with Cherie. Cherie is more than capable in herself and we are in constanct communication. Yes, she has received emails of ‘sympathy’ today which, in reality, are designed to exacerbate a perceived rift but sorry to disappoint – there is no rift.

There will be a rift the moment Cherie wants there to be, no sooner, no later. From my side, there is no rift. Cherie will communicate that to me by email or by phone and we’ll discuss it rationally, as we’ve always done.

But the bottom line is – she and I will do that, no one else.

If you look closely at those comments, they were respectful towards Cherie and the only one who tried desperately to personalize the issue, as you are doing now – was you.

I’m sure everyone now just wants this thing to be put in the past, everyone, that is, except those who plan to exploit it for all it’s worth.

I greatly regret that the thing has happened and if Cherie did suffer from it, something she’ll no doubt tell me herself, then naturally I deeply regret that. No one I know in the blogosphere would wish to harm Cherie.

As for the other commenters - I am not their keepers. If, on this blog, they go ad hominem, then the comment will be deleted. We've already established that Mark's was against the statement and nothing to do with any person.

Thank you.

UBERMOUTH said...

James,
You are missing the point.
This is not about Cherie per se, but about how a few bloggers here chose to deal with another's in a tone that was demeaning. It just happened to be Cherie.
Again, when Mark quotes her and suggests anyone proffering such views should be roundly abused then that is NOT against the statement,but the person issuing it.

You accused me of 'pulling a fast one' right after stating my motives are always pure.If I actually cared about peoples' opinions of me ,that and further comments by you today directed at me could be hurtful.

I don't know anything about wolves slavering,or trying to exploit a perceived rift or create one-but I have no reason to doubt you on that score.Likely I could name the wolves.
BUT please do not suggest that I am making it personal or am trying to create a rift.
You and your cronies here did Cherie a disservice, in my eyes- she may not be bothered at all-however, I was offended that any blogger should be treated as she was here. That's not personal.

But accusing me of what you have today is personal.

I WILL ALWAYS stand up and speak up when I think anyone is being denigrated and she was on this post's thread. But you know me well enough to know I have no agendas, no axes to grind-especially with you.

I have not attacked you and anyone who thinks you and I, or you and Cherie, would fall out over this blip needs to get a hobby.

Again,I feel Cherie was belittled and demeaned on this post and I have a right to exercise MY opinion on the matter. I never purported to speak on her behalf or to even know what her views are on the matter. I speak ONLY for myself, always.

I still say all 3 of you owe her an apology.
I am not even going to get into how I have now been demeaned and patronized for having my views.

James Higham said...

Sigh.

I say again, that if there is anything, then Cherie and I will deal with it as we see fit. She'll tell me which parts disappointed her and which hurt her and we'll work out a response between the two of us which will satisfy both.

There's no hardline I'm taking.

I'm saying that it's between Cherie and myself, just as your and my business is between us. Now if there is a problem with the latter, then we'll also deal with it our own way, right, not airing dirty linen in public?

UBERMOUTH said...

As I've stated, you're certainly closer friends with Cherie than I, and you of all people know I am loathe to even 'move in on' other peoples' friends.

This was a blogging issue and my last comment was me clarifying that even I was under fire for daring to speak out about MY views on someone being denigrated on your blog.
However, it does not mean we have dirty laundry. I certainly don't want you to feel I am attacking you on your blog-it's not personal.

You know how I feel about you,everyone does. And I love this blog more than my own.But I am not wrong for taking umbrage at a blogger being demeaned for her views on HER blog.
We will leave it at that- with me having the last word. :)

Lord T said...

Let's all hold hands now. It's going to be OK. Adults disagreeing does not mean they will fall out.

Let's turn a reasoned discussion into an emotional one as usual. That always seems to be the way these discussions go when these pesky facts get in the way.

Good news though. We must be growing up as nobody mentioned 'You know who!'

CherryPie said...

I was merely posting an article an article on two peoples experiences on their visit to Palestine. Trade Unionists support other Trade Unionist no matter what country they are in.

I would have no problem posting similar articles from other countries.

With regard to the blockage, the Palestinian Trade Unionist mentioned does not support at blockade either.

Finally I didn't intend to start a blog war and thanks Uber :-)

Lord T said...

CherryPie,

I wouldn't class this as a blog war. This issue is one of the standard issues that polarize people. I think it is because everyone hates to see children die or maimed however there is massive disagreement between us on the rights and wrongs and how to fix it.

Subject best avoided. I won't post on it if I can help it but I can't leave it uncommented on. Sorry.

UBERMOUTH said...

Cherie,
You did not start a blog war.
You wrote a thoroughly enjoyable, well written post spotlighting the human element behind the politics, which is often overlooked entirely.

It was nice to see such a perspective and I think it was one of your best posts. I hope that you will write more on the topic from the angle you did.

And I hope next time it will be responded to in the same spirit and with the same grace you support other bloggers' writings.

UBERMOUTH said...

Pinocchio- LOL @ Nobody mentioned you know who!

Do NOT invalidate my very valid concerns. I don't *invent* reasons to go off on one.

And please note- I did say that we would be leaving it with ME having the last word.

Lord T said...

Fine by me.

UBERMOUTH said...

lol As ong as we're clear on that.;]

Lord T said...

Very clear.

James Higham said...

I'm closing off comments here because they have now continued on the latest post.

Thanks so far to all.