While you were criticizing Israel...

The Vietnam War killed more people than Pol Pot ever did.

Its a backwater because the US and co insist on exporting their brand of democracy over there.

Conservative Christianity is hardly a good thing, is it?

Claims to stand for. The only real freedom it stands for is the right to screw someone else over.

The US government obviously has better PR - because I really don't see the moral justification that they had. Well not any that was significantly better than Pol Pots (assuming he had any at all).

This line of 'defence' from Pro-Israelis is getting tiresome. I agree that for some (but certainly not all- there are those who are sincere in their care for the other causes they name) it's an attempt to divert attention from their own government's crimes.

No person should have a moral obligation to try and protest against every single injustice that goes on in the world, or support every single charitable cause, such as Gaza, in the world. Would you pick a fight with someone who donates money to Cancer Research UK every month with the line "what about the British Heart Foundation, or Oxfam, or Barnados?!"?

While some people here indulged in "Israel - bashing", this happened:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/02/16/un-send-more-troops-dr-congo-1

But hey - I guess as long as no Muslims get hurt...

Note that in a similar period to that of the operation in Gaza around 800 civilians got killed - No F16 involved.

And some people claim Israel wasn't careful enough in Gaza...

I criticise many countries, but usually
1. nobody is outrageous enough on here to defend the people i attack so there is no point.
2. the country is some insignificant backwater- you expect nothing more of people essentially living in the stone age.

this is not the case with israel-palestine.


OH, but i am criticising ISRAEL so i MUST be anti-semitic. get a grip

Did i SAY anti-semitic? Was in insinuating anti-semitic? NO!

You are however a racist. Holding white people to higher standards than black people, because 'they don't know any better'. Your views stink of racism.

OOI, what other countries have you condemned?

I can see you know very little about the world. We do not refer to the first, second and third worlds any more - we talked about developped and developing countries.

Your assessments however, are incorrect. We should expect high standards from everyone, anything less is pretty much racism. Saying that 'Africans don't know any better' is quite an assertion and is also not very true - have you ever been to Africa (and I'm not talking about on Safari)?

Your assessment of the 'first world':
* Every country has the duty to protext their citizens as their first priority.
* If that country is attacked, it has the right to defend itself.
* That country has a duty to ensure (as far as possible) that if it's military targets are within civillian populations that they only hit when the 'value' of their military target is greater than the potential loss of human life (i.e. the response is proportionate).
* A rocketeer, rocket and rocket-launcher that has the potential to maim or kill Israelis IS a valuable and legitimate military target that Israel has a DUTY to destroy (to ensure the safety of their citizens).
* If the beligerent (in Israel's case Hamas) choose to fire rockets (that kill and maim israeli civillians) from near medical centres, schools, places of worship, markets and town squares then it is THEY who are responsible for any of the damage that ensues.

Of course you almost undoubtedly hold Hamas to lower standards than Israel (because Israelis are 'white' and Hamas are 'brown' and therefore the whites should know better than the browns, eh?) but the facts still stand.

no, i never said africans. i have used the words 'third world/insignificant/uncivilised' which you have interpreted as 'africans', which is not what i meant. it sounds like you have the race issue, not me.

it is you making the colour distinctions, which seem to be the basis of your arguments.

hamas is a 'terrorist' organisation.
i do not expect terrorists to act respectfully and to honour innocent life.

israel is supposed to be a 'civilised' country with civilised people.
i expect israel to to everything they can to prevent civilian deaths. they do not, as shown by the thousands of dead over the years, including western civilian observers who 'got in the way'.

you are just depserately searching for something to argue against.

This is not the question. Rather, the question is:

"Why do concentrate only on this crisis?"

And so there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the question is simple. What are the reasons that explain why the world's focus is on the apparently lesser crimes of Israel and not on the more serious crimes around the world? Is that a method for shutting down debate? No, of course not. It's a valid question. And moreover, I put it to you all, that those who refuse to engage with the question do so out of a fear that they cannot provide reasonable answers. For if they cannot explain why we all focus more on the lesser crimes they fear that we might do exactly what they don't want - spend our time focusing on the bigger crimes and sorting them out first.

For one thing we can all agree on - in a world of limited resources where we're forced to trade one cause against another, logic dictates that we focus on the biggest crimes first.

Hello UoL. I don't normally post in threads about Israel but I will weigh in here, hoping to provide a satisfactory answer to your "valid question". While many people bring lots of ideological/racial/religious baggage to the discussion of Israeli military actions, and you are right to question their motives, those (including myself) without that baggage also have reasons to disproportionately focus on Israeli crimes, compared to other human rights abuse (HRA) that is occurring around the world.

Before I give the reasons, I think it is important to point out a flaw in your assessment of how we should prioritize human causes. We should prioritize those causes which give most gain per unit resource. Some gross HRA would require exceptional expenditure to resolve satisfactorily. Some small CaH require less expenditure, and are considered resolvable with fewer resources. It is not necessarily the case that the expenditure required is proportional to the "good" done. We should focus on those causes that give the most good for each unit of resource, as then more overall good is done with a finite quantity of resources.

With that out the way, let us look at the reasons behind disproportionate focus on Israeli crimes:

Firstly, Israel is perceived as being more susceptible to international pressure than Congo rebels or others involved in HRA. Israel cares more about its international involvement and reputation than organizations that are, effectively, little more than butchers with AK47's riding around in jeeps. To prevent some HRA in Africa would, perhaps, require large-scale military intervention. At the maximum, it would require the immense task of constructing adequate power structures for the country. That is an extremely expensive task, both in financial and human terms. On the other hand, there is a belief that HRA by Israel can be stopped, or at least stemmed, by diplomatic engagement and peaceful protests/boycotts. This is cheap, relative to the work required for other HRA. There is hope that we can prevent HRA by Israel at less cost than more serious HRA by other countries.

Secondly, Israel is one of the largest receivers of military aid from the US. Therefore in the US there is a sense of responsibility. A HRA that has been committed with your (government's) support is perceived as being more of a responsibility than a HRA that is not so closely linked to you. The US's sense of responsibility creates interest in the part of the US's Western "allies" over how our (i.e. the West) aid is being used. Morally, you may still argue that HRA that we are partially responsible for should not be given more priority than those we have no perceived responsibility for, but it does explain the interest in the events.

I believe these reasons give a motive behind disproportionate focus. That is not to say that they justify the disproportionate focus being given, but they justify a disproportionate focus.

K.

[

Actually, I think the question is, "Why does the mainstream media give a massively disproportionate amount of coverage to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on a consistent basis, despite many more people dying in other conflicts around the world."

The fact of the mainstream media's attention has to be acknowledged before criticising people who get their news from that same media.