| Subject: Re: fundamentalism is scary |
Author:
Raisinmom
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 18:31:56 07/09/02 Tue
In reply to:
Astrid
's message, "fundamentalism is scary" on 16:27:22 07/09/02 Tue
>How can one little country be responsible for so much >hatred and death??
What exactly do you mean?
Sorry, I was unable to read that link to its end. A load of anti-Israel patooty from the Independent. I'm shocked, shocked. The article's own bias frankly negates any points it tried to make. For example, it dwells on the alliance between pro-Israeli groups and fundamentalist Christians and scorns this, noting that the latter only support the former to pave the way for the Messiah returning, which would also entail the conversion of the Jews. Sayeth the Independent: "This is basically an anti-Semitic teaching, but who cares, so long as they support Israel?"
My God! My God! Pro-Israeli groups are practicing politics to achieve their goals by aligning with a group that is not a natural bedfellow? Horrors! Yes, who cares, so long as they support Israel. Hello, that's called politics. And no, I don't care one whit WHY they support Israel. I support Israel, for reasons I just will not go into now, and I really don't care why others in power support Israel, I am just glad they do. Moreover, I don't kid myself that, say, Bush is pro-Israel out of any deep-seated love of the Jews, horror of the Holocaust, knowledge of the conditions that led to the formation in Israel, the 1967 war, etc. -- it's because Israel is the sole democracy in the area, an ally and a good strategic partner. So what. And it's just laughable to call this alliance the "least-covered story" of the Israel-Palestine conflict -- reams of paper have been devoted to this odd situation. Perhaps not in Europe, but oh, what a surprise. I can't wait to see the French coverage.
And there are some Jews who disagree with other Jews on Israel and express it in strong and disgusting terms? Again, so what. That doesn't mean that those on the receiving end of the insults are automatically right. Underdogs are not always on the side of the angels.
I also found the article's stress on the Israeli "occupation" of Palestine an indicator of its intent not to be fair. And the article cites, as just another horror story, the reader who "objected to the word 'terror' being placed within inverted commas in a Chronicle headline that read 'Sharon says "terror" justifies assault'." Well, hard to opine without reading the actual article, but what's so outre about objecting to the quotes? Isn't suicide bombing terror? Maybe it was part of a Sharon quote, in which case the punctuation might be accurate, but as a former copy editor, that's a rotten headline. The reader was right: in a vacuum, it *does* imply that what Sharon termed "terror" wasn't really terror at all -- an implication I find repugnant. (In copy-editor-speak, those are called "sneer quotes.") So the Independent lost me there too.
Lemme tell you, I see *plenty* of even-handed reporting, even in the dreaded NY Times, as well as plenty of bias both ways. What I find most distressing about the Independent's article is the implication that certain papers *must* be biased because they support Israel, when a perfectly rational explanation could be that those papers are right.
I will warn you all further that I am unlikely to engage in a debate about the merits of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Makes me too angry and changes no one's opinion. But if I can remember to do it, I will dig up the Guardian's interesting take on European anti-Israeli sentiment.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 