podwójny________________standart

Gość: marcin Re: podwójny________________standart IP: 81.219.64.* 31.08.03, 03:04

Support for Israel's ongoing occupation and repression is not unlike U.S.
support for Indonesia's 24-year occupation of and repression in East Timor or
Morocco's ongoing occupation of and repression in Western Sahara. If seen to
be in the strategic interests of the United States, Washington is quite
willing to support the most flagrant violation of international law and human
rights by its allies and block the United Nations or any other party from
challenging it. No ethnic lobby or ideological affinity is necessary to
motivate policymakers to do otherwise. As long as the amoral imperatives of
realpolitik remain unchallenged, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and
elsewhere will not reflect the American public's longstanding belief that U.S.
international relations should be guided by humanitarian principles and ethics.

Some of the worst cases of U.S. support for repression have not remained
unchallenged, leading to reversals in U.S. policy on Vietnam, Central America,
South Africa, and East Timor. In these cases, grass roots movements supportive
of peace and justice grew to a point where liberal members of Congress, in the
media and elsewhere, joined in the call to stop U.S. complicity in the
repression. In other cases, such as U.S. support for Morocco's invasion and
occupation of Western Sahara, too few Americans are even aware of the
situation to mount a serious challenge, so it remains off the radar screen of
lawmakers and pundits.

The case of Israel and Palestine is different, however. There are significant
sectors of the population that question U.S. policy, yet there is a widespread
consensus among elite sectors of government and the media in support of U.S.
backing of the Israeli occupation. Indeed, many of the same liberal Democrats
in Congress who supported progressive movements on other foreign policy issues
agree with President George W. Bush--or, in some cases, are even further to
the right--on the issue of Israel and Palestine. Therefore, while the
perceived strategic imperative is at the root of U.S. support for Israel,
there are additional factors that have made this issue more difficult for
peace and human rights activists than most others. These include the following:

The sentimental attachment many liberals--particularly among the post-war
generation in leadership positions in government and the media--have for
Israel. Many Americans identify with Israel's internal democracy, progressive
social institutions (such as the kibbutzim), relatively high level of social
equality, and its important role as a sanctuary for an oppressed minority
group that spent centuries in diaspora. Through a mixture of guilt regarding
Western anti-Semitism, personal friendships with Jewish Americans who identify
strongly with Israel, and fear of inadvertently encouraging anti-Semitism by
criticizing Israel, there is enormous reluctance to acknowledge the
seriousness of Israeli violations of human rights and international law.
The Christian Right, with tens of millions of followers and a major base of
support for the Republican Party, has thrown its immense media and political
clout in support for Ariel Sharon and other right-wing Israeli leaders. Based
in part on a messianic theology that sees the ingathering of Jews to the Holy
Land as a precursor for the second coming of Christ, the battle between
Israelis and Palestinians is, in their eyes, simply a continuation of the
battle between the Israelites and the Philistines, with God in the role of a
cosmic real estate agent who has deemed that the land belongs to Israel alone--
secular notions regarding international law and the right of self-
determination notwithstanding.
Mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have mobilized considerable
lobbying resources, financial contributions from the Jewish community, and
citizen pressure on the news media and other forums of public discourse in
support of the Israeli government. Although the role of the pro-Israel lobby
is often greatly exaggerated--with some even claiming it is the primary factor
influencing U.S. policy--its role has been important in certain tight
congressional races and in helping to create a climate of intimidation among
those who seek to moderate U.S. policy, including growing numbers of
progressive Jews.
The arms industry, which contributes five times more money to congressional
campaigns and lobbying efforts than AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, has
considerable stake in supporting massive arms shipments to Israel and other
Middle Eastern allies of the United States. It is far easier, for example, for
a member of Congress to challenge a $60 million arms deal to Indonesia, for
example, than the more than $2 billion of arms to Israel, particularly when so
many congressional districts include factories that produce such military
hardware.
The widespread racism toward Arabs and Muslims so prevalent in American
society, often perpetuated in the media. This is compounded by the
identification many Americans have with Zionism in the Middle East as a
reflection of our own historic experience as pioneers in North America,
building a nation based upon noble, idealistic values while simultaneously
suppressing and expelling the indigenous population.
The failure of progressive movements in the United States to challenge U.S.
policy toward Israel and Palestine in an effective manner. For many years,
most mainstream peace and human rights groups avoided the issue, not wanting
to alienate many of their Jewish and other liberal constituents supportive of
the Israeli government and fearing criticism of Israeli policies might
inadvertently encourage anti-Semitism. As a result, without any countervailing
pressure, liberal members of Congress had little incentive not to cave in to
pressure from supporters of the Israeli government. Meanwhile, many groups on
the far left and others took a stridently anti-Israel position that did not
just challenge Israeli policies but also questioned Israel's very right to
exist, severely damaging their credibility. In some cases, particularly among
the more conservative individuals and groups critical of Israel, a latent anti-
Semitism would come to the fore in wildly exaggerated claims of Jewish
economic and political power and other statements, further alienating
potential critics of U.S. policy.

www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/usisrael.html

Drzewko
Od najstarszego
Od najnowszego

Gość: marcin Re: podwójny________________standart IP: 81.219.64.* 31.08.03, 02:50

The blacks in Sudan are in worse conditions, the number of dead runs
in the millions and slavery is common. Tibetian can do very little
against a superpower like China. The Iraqi Kurds are also in a bad
shape, and so are the starving people in Congo.

I asked you why the Palestinians are the only people that produces a
large number of suicide bombers, you ducked. You don't have a clue what
the answer is, even though I gave you a clue by mentioning the 9/11
Saudi suicide bombers.

So I'll spell it out for you.

If any other people will try to use large scale suicide bombers against
civilians then it will lose all international support. Only anti-Jewish
actions are exampt from that. That's the EU way to bring peace.
Gość: marcin Re: podwójny________________standart IP: 81.219.64.* 31.08.03, 02:51

Why do no other people use homicide bombers?

Answer?

Are Pallies more oppressed than black Sudanese Xians who
are sold into slavery by black Sudanese Muslims?

Answer?

Are Pallies more oppressed than the 100,000 people killed
in Algeria's civil war?

Answer?

Are Pallies more oppressed than Kurds in Iraq, against whom
Saddam used poison gas?

Answer?

My question: Are Pallies more oppressed in Israel than they
were in Jordan, where, in 1970, they fomented civil war which
led to the slaughter of 20,000 Pallies in less than a week?

Answer?
Gość: marcin Re: podwójny________________standart IP: 81.219.64.* 31.08.03, 03:04

Support for Israel's ongoing occupation and repression is not unlike U.S.
support for Indonesia's 24-year occupation of and repression in East Timor or
Morocco's ongoing occupation of and repression in Western Sahara. If seen to
be in the strategic interests of the United States, Washington is quite
willing to support the most flagrant violation of international law and human
rights by its allies and block the United Nations or any other party from
challenging it. No ethnic lobby or ideological affinity is necessary to
motivate policymakers to do otherwise. As long as the amoral imperatives of
realpolitik remain unchallenged, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and
elsewhere will not reflect the American public's longstanding belief that U.S.
international relations should be guided by humanitarian principles and ethics.

Some of the worst cases of U.S. support for repression have not remained
unchallenged, leading to reversals in U.S. policy on Vietnam, Central America,
South Africa, and East Timor. In these cases, grass roots movements supportive
of peace and justice grew to a point where liberal members of Congress, in the
media and elsewhere, joined in the call to stop U.S. complicity in the
repression. In other cases, such as U.S. support for Morocco's invasion and
occupation of Western Sahara, too few Americans are even aware of the
situation to mount a serious challenge, so it remains off the radar screen of
lawmakers and pundits.

The case of Israel and Palestine is different, however. There are significant
sectors of the population that question U.S. policy, yet there is a widespread
consensus among elite sectors of government and the media in support of U.S.
backing of the Israeli occupation. Indeed, many of the same liberal Democrats
in Congress who supported progressive movements on other foreign policy issues
agree with President George W. Bush--or, in some cases, are even further to
the right--on the issue of Israel and Palestine. Therefore, while the
perceived strategic imperative is at the root of U.S. support for Israel,
there are additional factors that have made this issue more difficult for
peace and human rights activists than most others. These include the following:

The sentimental attachment many liberals--particularly among the post-war
generation in leadership positions in government and the media--have for
Israel. Many Americans identify with Israel's internal democracy, progressive
social institutions (such as the kibbutzim), relatively high level of social
equality, and its important role as a sanctuary for an oppressed minority
group that spent centuries in diaspora. Through a mixture of guilt regarding
Western anti-Semitism, personal friendships with Jewish Americans who identify
strongly with Israel, and fear of inadvertently encouraging anti-Semitism by
criticizing Israel, there is enormous reluctance to acknowledge the
seriousness of Israeli violations of human rights and international law.
The Christian Right, with tens of millions of followers and a major base of
support for the Republican Party, has thrown its immense media and political
clout in support for Ariel Sharon and other right-wing Israeli leaders. Based
in part on a messianic theology that sees the ingathering of Jews to the Holy
Land as a precursor for the second coming of Christ, the battle between
Israelis and Palestinians is, in their eyes, simply a continuation of the
battle between the Israelites and the Philistines, with God in the role of a
cosmic real estate agent who has deemed that the land belongs to Israel alone--
secular notions regarding international law and the right of self-
determination notwithstanding.
Mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have mobilized considerable
lobbying resources, financial contributions from the Jewish community, and
citizen pressure on the news media and other forums of public discourse in
support of the Israeli government. Although the role of the pro-Israel lobby
is often greatly exaggerated--with some even claiming it is the primary factor
influencing U.S. policy--its role has been important in certain tight
congressional races and in helping to create a climate of intimidation among
those who seek to moderate U.S. policy, including growing numbers of
progressive Jews.
The arms industry, which contributes five times more money to congressional
campaigns and lobbying efforts than AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, has
considerable stake in supporting massive arms shipments to Israel and other
Middle Eastern allies of the United States. It is far easier, for example, for
a member of Congress to challenge a $60 million arms deal to Indonesia, for
example, than the more than $2 billion of arms to Israel, particularly when so
many congressional districts include factories that produce such military
hardware.
The widespread racism toward Arabs and Muslims so prevalent in American
society, often perpetuated in the media. This is compounded by the
identification many Americans have with Zionism in the Middle East as a
reflection of our own historic experience as pioneers in North America,
building a nation based upon noble, idealistic values while simultaneously
suppressing and expelling the indigenous population.
The failure of progressive movements in the United States to challenge U.S.
policy toward Israel and Palestine in an effective manner. For many years,
most mainstream peace and human rights groups avoided the issue, not wanting
to alienate many of their Jewish and other liberal constituents supportive of
the Israeli government and fearing criticism of Israeli policies might
inadvertently encourage anti-Semitism. As a result, without any countervailing
pressure, liberal members of Congress had little incentive not to cave in to
pressure from supporters of the Israeli government. Meanwhile, many groups on
the far left and others took a stridently anti-Israel position that did not
just challenge Israeli policies but also questioned Israel's very right to
exist, severely damaging their credibility. In some cases, particularly among
the more conservative individuals and groups critical of Israel, a latent anti-
Semitism would come to the fore in wildly exaggerated claims of Jewish
economic and political power and other statements, further alienating
potential critics of U.S. policy.

www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/usisrael.html

Najnowsze z forum Świat

Zaloguj się