The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 140
borismor
As we speak, Hamas is executing people in Gaza which he suspects of being Israel's
collaborators.

According to Hamas's spokesman, Muhamed Nachal, a man has been
sentenced today to death by a firing squad. He did not give details about the man's name
or about weather or not a trial took place or when the sentenced will be carried.

According to Palestinian law, the president (Abbas) has to personally sign a warrant
in order to execute someone.

Don't say you didn't know.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053825.html




Dunno about you but id be pretty pissed off if i find out people in my country had been collaborating with the enemy. Whats wrong with with Hamas's action. Like America doesn't fly out its so called terror suspects to arab countrys, where it tortures them and kills them.

Come on gimme a break.
Double standards i smell.....
Reply 141
neil44
Dunno about you but id be pretty pissed off if i find out people in my country had been collaborating with the enemy. Whats wrong with with Hamas's action. Like America doesn't fly out its so called terror suspects to arab countrys, where it tortures them and kills them.



'Go, go out of here! Do you want the Israelis kill us all? You want to see die under the bombs our children? Taken away your weapons and missiles, "shouted many among the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip to Hamas militants and their allies of Islamic Jihad. The bravest were organized and had barred the doors to their yards, nailed to the boards of buildings, locked up as we go along the stairs to the roof higher. But for most of the guerrillas did not listen to anyone. "Traitors. Collaborators of Israel. Spies Fatah cowards. The soldiers of the holy war will punish. And in any case all will die, like us. Attacking the Jewish Zionists, we are all destined for paradise, you are not happy to die together? ". And so furious shouting, breaking down doors and windows, hid in the highest floors, in gardens, used ambulances, we barricavano near hospitals, schools, buildings Assembly.


Source. (Original.)


This man simply did not want his house to be used, and he is called a "collaborator". You think all the people Hamas call these things actually are?
Reply 142
[QUOTE="neil44"]Dunno about you but id be pretty pissed off if i find out people in my country had been collaborating with the enemy. /QUOTE]


And still you'd have to give them a fair trial.,

And like I said, Hamas is execucting these people illegally.

Like America doesn't fly out its so called terror suspects to arab countrys, where it tortures them and kills them.


Do you have any proof of this?
Reply 143
UniOfLife
Hi Kolya,

Your reasons are both valid answers to the valid question, but I don't think they are correct. They would be reasons for disproportionate focus, but I think that for the majority of the anti-Israel brigade they cannot be the reason.

For a start, we never hear these arguments put forward. I've read plenty of anti-Israel articles and don't recall ever seeing anything that runs like "yes, Israeli crimes are lesser but Israel cares about human rights abuses and so we can really make a difference there". In fact, the opposite is true. The anti-Israel debate is dominated by desperate attempts to portray Israel as the world's worst offender and as a country that doesn't care about crimes and gets away with them. These things run completely counter to your first justification.

And likewise the second one. We do not hear people saying that the reason they condemn Israel is because it is a Western country. In fact, the only article I can recall that ever made this point was a generally pro-Israel one that was urging Israel to pay even more careful attention. This is the position one would take if our concern was one of a friend. The position taken by most anti-Israeli types is that Israel is the enemy and not Western at all (except when claiming that it is a Western Imperialist entity). Furthermore, the argument is weak in itself since our aid gives us far more control of other countries with worse abuses than it does of Israel. And finally, the only occasions when Israel's aid is mentioned is when followed by claims that Zionists control the US/UK/EU/World.

So, while I appreciate that these are valid reasons and could be the reason for some people, I don't think they can be the reasons for the vast majority.

As an afterthought, it is obvious that if either of these were the reasons, there is no way any anti-Israel person could stand together with a worse human rights abuser (ie Islamists) in their condemnation.
Do people usually include their motivations behind selection in criticism, though? I wouldn't expect explanations for the disproportionate focus in articles. Rather, I would simply expect explanations behind the reason for complaining about Israel's actions, and that we get from most intelligent people. They naturally explain why they have decided to write about Israel, rather than why they haven't decided to write about something else.

Of course, you may suspect foul play behind some people's motives: some voices, unfortunately often the loudest, are clearly motivated by racism or are absurdly hypocritical in their critcism. However, for the majority of the mainstream, intelligent criticism of Israel - and I will openly admit that I am far from an expert on the Middle East - I think my explanations (and how they direct media interest, and hence the interest of writers, editors, and columnists, who may not consciously be directed by my reasons) are closer to the mark.

Then again, while I think I offer some explanation, I don't think the "moral argument" can really explain all the interest in the media. In hindsight, I think I overestimated its importance; as much as I may dream, few people are motivated by an analysis of the utilitarian moral considerations involved in how they proportion their focus. I was merely interested in demonstrating that such an argument for disporportionate focus can be confidently made.

So, while a moral argument can be made, what is the primary explanation for the disproportionate focus? I think we can use some of the elements in my moral argument to come to a better explanation. The explanation for the focus is simply that most people are interested because they find the scenario more interesting. Sad as it seems, the movie would sell better. People know the history - including Britain's involvement in it - and want to see what happens next. It's the Holy Land - an important area for Christians, Jews and Muslims - and so inflames (often religious) passions. The plot's easier to understand. The environment is closer to our Western world (and our experiences garnered through travel) than in Africa. It's got two sides with easily identifiable goals, tactics, leaders, and beliefs. And, with this increased interest, comes more passionate and vocal voices speaking out for one of the sides.

So why the greater interest, along with the greater and more passionate criticism? Is it some nuanced utilitarian moral argument? No. It's simply 'cause the story's a ****ing blockbuster.
That doesn't work either for two major reasons. The underlying assumption to the argument is that people know more about this topic but:
1) That makes the argument circular as the only reason they know more about it is because it is talked about and focussed on more; and
2) The staggering level of sheer ignorance shows that people do not, in fact, know a lot about it (although perhaps they think they do).

As an aside, British involvement is probably far higher in most of the African wars than in Israel.
Reply 145
UniOfLife
That doesn't work either for two major reasons. The underlying assumption to the argument is that people know more about this topic but:
1) That makes the argument circular as the only reason they know more about it is because it is talked about and focussed on more; and
2) The staggering level of sheer ignorance shows that people do not, in fact, know a lot about it (although perhaps they think they do). I don't think that is an underlying assumption. I said they were more interested, found the story more compelling, and hence were more passionate. None of those things necessitate a great deal of knowledge about the topic.

In response to your first point, I gave reasons why the story is more compelling to readers in Britain that do not rely on knowing more. Firstly, the position of the two sides, and the nature of the conflict, is easy to understand. Secondly, the environment is more familiar to Britons than Africa, and so can be more easily related to. Thirdly, the location is religiously significant to Christians/Muslims/Jews.

Regarding your second point, I would also say that your typical broadsheet reader probably knows more about the history of the conflict in the Middle East than it does about various conflicts in Africa. If you know something of the story then it's easier to place new events into the story (and this creates an interest in new developments), but if you know nothing of the story then you are unlikely to . I'm an average Joe, and I know various things about the Middle East: a little about Zionism, the foundation of Israel in 1948, the 1963 war, war in 1980 with Lebanon, and so on. I know the demands of both sides. I know the rough geography of the area. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about, say, Somalia - I know almost nothing about its political or social history. You might say I am grossly ignorant of the political nuances involved in the conflict, but I know far more about the basic backdrop than I do in most African conflicts.

So, if there are elements that make the story more attractive than stories about Africa, these create an environment where people know more about the history of the conflict, and this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle because of the desire to follow developments about stories we know.
Reply 146
Durban conference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_Review_Conference#Government_Boycotts

Again an example of how the term "human rights" is being abused.
Reply 147
PeeWeeDan
I beg to differ. Whenever Israel does something wrong the Muslim population of TSR is up in arms. All the anti-Israel rallies around the country are populated by Muslims and hard left wingers. It is certainly an anti-Israeli sentiment, and screams of "Hamas! Hamas! Jews back to the gas!" is probably telling that this anti-Israeli sentiment is at least partially motivated by anti-semitism.



I went on one of those protests and the level of anti-Semitism among people is astounding. I never went after, its just wrong. I fear that the new up and coming Muslims think that being Muslim you sort of need to be anti-Semitic too, that's totally ignorant and wrong. - the irony is that its these same people who then go out and say Islam is all peace. They don't practice what they preach. :shifty: Very few people actually know what is going on unless its in the news, then they'll read a few articles and a little history and suddenly they know it all. :rolleyes:

Although i think what Israel has done and the way they have done it is totally wrong that does not mean I support Hamas in anyway or form. They are even worse, making the issue(s) harder to resolve. Gaza is the biggest open air prison in the world - everything that goes in and out is controlled by the Israelis I read somewhere they allowed rice into the region but not pasta! :confused: - yes Israel should not being doing this but they only do it because of Hamas.

I think we need to get out of this circle of blaming this side and that side. Action must be taken, positive action which will help the people of Gaza and Israel - but this seems a very long way off.
46664
I went on one of those protests and the level of anti-Semitism among people is astounding. I never went after, its just wrong. I fear that the new up and coming Muslims think that being Muslim you sort of need to be anti-Semitic too, that's totally ignorant and wrong. - the irony is that its these same people who then go out and say Islam is all peace. They don't practice what they preach. :shifty: Very few people actually know what is going on unless its in the news, then they'll read a few articles and a little history and suddenly they know it all. :rolleyes:

Although i think what Israel has done and the way they have done it is totally wrong that does not mean I support Hamas in anyway or form. They are even worse, making the issue(s) harder to resolve. Gaza is the biggest open air prison in the world - everything that goes in and out is controlled by the Israelis I read somewhere they allowed rice into the region but not pasta! :confused: - yes Israel should not being doing this but they only do it because of Hamas.

I think we need to get out of this circle of blaming this side and that side. Action must be taken, positive action which will help the people of Gaza and Israel - but this seems a very long way off.


/Emphatically agree(with a few omissions :p:)
Reply 149
PeeWeeDan
/Emphatically agree(with a few omissions :p:)


First time for everything...well almost. :smile: