| nettime's compiler on Fri, 14 Sep 2001 23:02:29 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> Israel rushes to capitalise on terrorist attack [4x] |
Table of Contents:
Re: <nettime> Israel rushes to capitalise on terrorist attack
=?iso-8859-1?q?karaite?= <karaite@yahoo.com>
Re: <nettime> Israel rushes to capitalise on terrorist attack
Chaim Gingold <cog@chopper.slackworks.com>
Question
Chaim Gingold <cog@chopper.slackworks.com>
Re: <nettime> Israel rushes to capitalise on terrorist attack
scotartt <scot@systemx.autonomous.org>
fwd "CNN USING 1991 FOOTAGE of celebrating Palistinians"?
Sean Healy <evolver@loud.org.au>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:04:53 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?karaite?= <karaite@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Israel rushes to capitalise on terrorist attack
> I find extremely disturbing the undue haste in the
> way that Israeli figures have used this appalling
act
> of barbarity to attempt to advance their own
> interests in the most outrageous way.
I am not a supporter of the current Israeli
government, but I find extremely disturbing the way
that people seem to expect Israel to behave if it is
at peace when it is in fact at war - not with the
Palestinian people, but with terror groups operating
among them.
While it is clear to all right-thinking people that
these terror groups will only be finally defeated when
there is no reason for them to exist any longer - when
there is a just and equitable peace established
between the two sides - in the meantime it is not
acceptable to ask the Israelis, as you seem to be
doing, simply to continue allowing their civilians to
be randomly murdered and blown up without attempting
to do something about it. The interests of Israel lie
in defending itself. Do you really find it outrageous
that Israel should defend itself? Perhaps you do.
Back on planet human, terrorist attacks on civilians
in Israel are a constant feature of everyday life
there, and the government usually (not always)
responds with military action aimed at preventing or
reducing the likelihood of further attacks. These
attacks shore up Palestinian anti-Israeli sentiment
and make further attacks more, not less likely. It
seems that neither side is capable of breaking the
cycle at the moment; peace will probably only be
achieved when both sides do so simultaneously.
In my opinion, Israel frequently responds
over-harshly, it frequently responds with undue,
misdirected, and inappropriate force, it is as guilty
of the deaths of civilians as are the terrorists and
there are some actions that are completely
inexplicable in the context of an attempt to reduce
the levels of attacks, but, just as the Palestinian
freedom fighters believe their actions to be
justified, since they see themselves as 'at war', so
do the Israelis. While sane and rational people on
both sides just want peace and continue to work
towards this, the leadership on each side has been
unable to achieve this; indeed, it is pretty clear
that Sharon's election victory was a direct result of
Arafat's inability to convince Israelis that the
Palestinians actually do want a just peace; itself a
direct result of Barak's previous inability to
convince the Palestinians that the Israelis actually
do want a just peace.
Meanwhile, attacking the Israelis for attempting to
defend themselves when at war is not merely a waste of
breath that helps no-one, it also betrays a massive
ignorance of 20th century history and the complex mess
of political and human disasters that have led to the
complex situation that now obtains in the Middle East.
Condemning the leaders of the Israeli military for
failing to act as if they are at peace when they are
at war is absurd.
Underlying it all, the very basis of Zionism - the
idea that the Jewish people should have
self-determination, is identical to the very basis of
the Palestinian claim - the idea the Palestinian
people should have self-determination. You can reject
both or neither - it is precisely because I am a
Zionist myself that I can see no logical position
other than to support the immediate establishment of a
Palestinian state as well.
What mystifies me is why so many otherwise intelligent
people from all parts of the political spectrum choose
one of the two and then reject the other one,
depending - I can only assume - on whether or not you
are more inclined towards anti-Jewish or anti-Arab
sentiments. The knee-jerk reaction to this kind idea
on nettime is to say words to the effect of 'Oh, but
*I* can't possibly be racist, *I'm* left-wing', to
which the only reasonable reply is 'Bollocks' - check
the mote in your own eye.
Choosing between the rights of the Palestinian people
and the Jewish people is racist. Palestinian
nationalism and Zionism in themselves are not racist,
but sadly, most supporters of either one take the
racist line of rejecting the other, whether they
accept it the fact or not. Oddly, those on the right
are more likely to be honest about this than those on
the left, who tend to be unable to accept evidence of
racism in their own minds, even when they do things
like equate Zionism with racism while simultaneously
pledging support for Palestinian nationalism.
Of course, I'm not accusing anyone on nettime of being
racist, (although anyone who thinks Zionism is racism
will already have dismissed me as a racist myself and
won't even get to this sentence.)
Meanwhile, the campaign for peace continues - on both
sides. May it come soon.
> I for one am sick of the total
> and complete lack of nuance present in American
> television
This is hardly a statement of particular depth or
incisiveness. So, you've noticed that American
television is shit. Look more closely, and you'll see
that all television is shit, even that television that
happens to reinforce your particular personal beliefs.
That's because it's an intrinsically shit medium aimed
at the intellectual lowest common denominator.
> attack, time and time again I only saw the same,
> identical, footage of the
> same 10 to 15 adults with about the same number of
> children.
This proves nothing other than that the station you
were watching only felt the need to buy one particular
piece of footage showing this. There may be more of
such footage or this may genuinely be the only
example. We will never know. Meanwhile, if you must
continue to watch television, you might choose to
notice that in television news, you always see the
same, identical footage of x time and time again,
every day, day in day out, whatever the subject.
That's because they don't buy in unlimited footage
that they show once each only; they buy in as little
as possible and show each as much as they can get away
with. That's how television works, and one of the
substantive reasons why it is a shit medium.
> Benjamin Netanyahu. When
> asked what the attack on New York meant for
> relations between the US and
> Israel, he said: "It's very good." He quickly went
> on: "Well, not very
> good, but it will generate immediate sympathy."
There is never any point in quoting Benjamin
Netanyahu, who is widely considered to be a complete
idiot, even by his own right-wing Likudnik colleagues,
unless you are trying to demonstrate that he is an
idiot, which is pointless, since he has made a
successful lifelong career out of doing precisely that.
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:47:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chaim Gingold <cog@chopper.slackworks.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Israel rushes to capitalise on terrorist attack
It is important to keep in mind that the limited footage on
celebrating Palestinians might be a result of censorship. The Foreign
Press Organization in Israel had this to say:
"The FPA expresses deep concern over the harassment of journalists by
the Palestinian Authority as police forces and armed gunmen tried to
prevent photo and video coverage of Tuesday's rally in
Nablus where hundreds of Palestinians celebrated the terror attacks
in NY and Washington.
"We strongly condemn the direct threats made against
local videographers by local militia members and the
attitude of Palestinian officials who made no effort to counter the
threats, control the situation, or to guarantee the safety of the
journalists and the freedom of the press.
"We call on the PA to ensure freedom of the press and the free flow of
information and to prevent elements operating within PA jurisdiction from
making or carrying out threats that aim to impede this and effectively
impose censorship. We hold the PA fully responsible for the safety of each
and every journalist operating within their areas, especially those who
were filming and covering Tuesday's events in Nablus."
We must be careful when comparing Palestinian terror attacks with those we
witnessed Tuesday. In terms of style and substance -- the deliberate
targetting of random individuals -- they are identical. Drawing
distinctions of justification based upon underlying motivations seems to
be a slippery slope. The deliberate targetting of random men, women, and
children whether they be at the mall, WTC, Pentagon, or Sbarro's is
unjustifiable under any circumstances.
[excerpted from
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/13/LatestNews/LatestNews.34810.html]
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, scotartt wrote:
> This is an extract from today's Sydney Morning Herald editorial. I find
> extremely disturbing the undue haste in the way that Israeli figures have
> used this appalling act of barbarity to attempt to advance their own
> interests in the most outrageous way. America, this Israel that thinks the
> attack is "very good"; this is the same Israel you spend $6 billion on each
> year so it can buy the tanks and helicopters it uses to shoot and bomb
> civilians.
>
> It seems to me, watching CNN, FOX, CNBC that the American media can not
> and/or will not make a distinction between Palestinian organisations and
> others with a much broader agenda like al Quaeda. It seems to me, that
> these latter groups only use the name of Palestinian cause to further their
> own interests, and that it is relatively easy to distinguish between the
> two groups, their actions and their motives. I for one am sick of the total
> and complete lack of nuance present in American television (even in
> contrast to our own paltry imitations). I'd also like to note that in the
> many claims of "widespread" Palestinian rejoicing at the news of the
> attack, time and time again I only saw the same, identical, footage of the
> same 10 to 15 adults with about the same number of children. The only thing
> "widespread" about it was the airplay this solitary set of images received.
>
> >From www.smh.com.au Thursday 13th Sept 2001.
>
> " [...] There is also a consciousness of the danger of stigmatising
> American Muslims in the wake of this latest outrage. (A similar
> consciousness, in the Australian context, has been evident in calls
> yesterday by Australian political and church leaders not to make rash
> judgments about who might have been responsible for the terrorist attacks.)
> But American Muslims have few but their own to speak for them. They
> struggle to assert their loyalty and commitment to the US and their
> abhorrence of violence. The reaction of some Jewish Americans has, in
> contrast, been to make an immediate connection between the terrorism
> visited so terribly on New York and Washington with the constant cycle of
> violence that grips Israel. The sentiment behind this has been chillingly
> expressed by the former Israeli prime minister Mr Benjamin Netanyahu. When
> asked what the attack on New York meant for relations between the US and
> Israel, he said: "It's very good." He quickly went on: "Well, not very
> good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." [...] "
>
> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:37:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chaim Gingold <cog@chopper.slackworks.com>
Subject: Question
If an overtly political message was accepted to this list then it seems
only fair that a response pointing out factual inaccuracies should be
acceptable as well.
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:47:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chaim Gingold <cog@chopper.slackworks.com>
To: scotartt <scot@systemx.autonomous.org>
Cc: nettime-l <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Israel rushes to capitalise on terrorist attack
It is important to keep in mind that the limited footage on
celebrating Palestinians might be a result of censorship. The Foreign
Press Organization in Israel had this to say:
"The FPA expresses deep concern over the harassment of journalists by
the Palestinian Authority as police forces and armed gunmen tried to
prevent photo and video coverage of Tuesday's rally in
Nablus where hundreds of Palestinians celebrated the terror attacks
in NY and Washington.
"We strongly condemn the direct threats made against
local videographers by local militia members and the
attitude of Palestinian officials who made no effort to counter the
threats, control the situation, or to guarantee the safety of the
journalists and the freedom of the press.
"We call on the PA to ensure freedom of the press and
the free flow of information and to prevent elements operating within
PA jurisdiction from making or carrying out threats that aim to impede
this and effectively impose censorship. We hold the PA fully
responsible for the safety of each and every journalist operating within
their areas, especially those who were filming and covering
Tuesday's events in Nablus."
We must be careful when comparing Palestinian terror attacks with
those we witnessed Tuesday. In terms of style and substance -- the
deliberate targetting of random individuals -- they are identical. Drawing
distinctions of justification based upon underlying motivations seems to
be a slippery slope. The deliberate targetting of random men, women,
and children whether they be at the mall, WTC, Pentagon, or Sbarro's is
unjustifiable under any circumstances.
[excerpted from
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/13/LatestNews/LatestNews.34810.html]
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, scotartt wrote:
> This is an extract from today's Sydney Morning Herald editorial. I find
> extremely disturbing the undue haste in the way that Israeli figures have
> used this appalling act of barbarity to attempt to advance their own
> interests in the most outrageous way. America, this Israel that thinks the
> attack is "very good"; this is the same Israel you spend $6 billion on each
> year so it can buy the tanks and helicopters it uses to shoot and bomb
> civilians.
>
> It seems to me, watching CNN, FOX, CNBC that the American media can not
> and/or will not make a distinction between Palestinian organisations and
> others with a much broader agenda like al Quaeda. It seems to me, that
> these latter groups only use the name of Palestinian cause to further their
> own interests, and that it is relatively easy to distinguish between the
> two groups, their actions and their motives. I for one am sick of the total
> and complete lack of nuance present in American television (even in
> contrast to our own paltry imitations). I'd also like to note that in the
> many claims of "widespread" Palestinian rejoicing at the news of the
> attack, time and time again I only saw the same, identical, footage of the
> same 10 to 15 adults with about the same number of children. The only thing
> "widespread" about it was the airplay this solitary set of images received.
>
> >From www.smh.com.au Thursday 13th Sept 2001.
>
> " [...] There is also a consciousness of the danger of stigmatising
> American Muslims in the wake of this latest outrage. (A similar
> consciousness, in the Australian context, has been evident in calls
> yesterday by Australian political and church leaders not to make rash
> judgments about who might have been responsible for the terrorist attacks.)
> But American Muslims have few but their own to speak for them. They
> struggle to assert their loyalty and commitment to the US and their
> abhorrence of violence. The reaction of some Jewish Americans has, in
> contrast, been to make an immediate connection between the terrorism
> visited so terribly on New York and Washington with the constant cycle of
> violence that grips Israel. The sentiment behind this has been chillingly
> expressed by the former Israeli prime minister Mr Benjamin Netanyahu. When
> asked what the attack on New York meant for relations between the US and
> Israel, he said: "It's very good." He quickly went on: "Well, not very
> good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." [...] "
>
> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:23:11 +1000
From: scotartt <scot@systemx.autonomous.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Israel rushes to capitalise on terrorist attack
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 06:47:33PM -0400, Chaim Gingold wrote:
> We must be careful when comparing Palestinian terror attacks with
> those we witnessed Tuesday. In terms of style and substance -- the
> deliberate targetting of random individuals -- they are identical. Drawing
> distinctions of justification based upon underlying motivations seems to
> be a slippery slope. The deliberate targetting of random men, women,
> and children whether they be at the mall, WTC, Pentagon, or Sbarro's is
> unjustifiable under any circumstances.
I do not think that WWII-era British Bomber Command, or American Army Air
Force, would agree with you. For further example, I regard it as right of
the USA to use the Atom Bomb against Japan in 1945. This is indiscriminate
killing of civilians and is perfectly justifiable in that situation (WWII)
by my view and also in the view of many, many others, including my father
who was in the jungles of the Solomon Islands at the time, fighting the
army of that enemy. Without such bomb it is very possible I would not
exist, as my father may not have therefore survived the war. Whatever,
many Americans as well as others would agree this action, while extremely
regrettable, is justifiable. Therefore, in my view, the justification is
*situational* and not subject to blanket, all-encompassing, moralisms
about "any circumstances".
Meanwhile Israeli army is an army of occupation and this army, and
occupying civilians (settlers) also basically indiscriminately kills
civilians and absolutely indiscriminately abuses their human rights and
denies to them, or actively removes, basic comforts such as shelter and
water (let alone electricity).
You talk of propaganda yet the Israeli state has the greatest weapon of
propaganda - the American News Media - at its disposal ever since this
conflict arose via the actions of Zionist terrorists in British Palestine.
The US news media is the greatest mouthpiece in the world for trumpeting
Israeli interests and producing marginalised, de-humanised population of
those whom the Israeli state oppresses daily. Because of this massive
imbalance in the US media the Israeli state is allowed to get away with
its state-sponsored terror actions with a complete impunity that the
Palestinian Authority never will. Please don't come at me with comments
about 'balance'.
Israel is a terrorist state as much as Iran, Iraq or North Korea. Begin
and others were once wanted terrorists whom the British would have rightly
strung up from the nearest gallows on capture (of course after appropriate
British-system trial, something Israeli assassination policy does not
concede to its victims).
Israeli army sees justification in shooting with deadly force, at youths
throwing stones, and demolishing their houses with bulldozers and occpying
their cities with tanks. Israeli settlers of occupied lands see
justification in stealing all the best land and then operating death
squads under the protection of Army units because some outraged
Palestinians see necessary to resist this immoral theft of their land -
land which has been their forefathers for time immemorial. Israeli
religious fundamentalists see justification in seeing their children
excused from compulsory military service whilst the children of secular
Israelis are sent to war in order to protect the interests of those same
religious fundamentalists. The state of Israel commits ethnic cleansing
everyday without fail against the people of Palestine, by refusal to
readmit refugees violently thrown off their land over 50 years ago, and by
*continuing* to confiscate land and deny economic and human rights
opportunities to a people whose land it occupies by force against their
wishes.
Israeli state and its apologists see fit to hi-jack the term
'anti-Semitism', and seek to prevent any criticism of their own actions,
and only condemn the actions of others, when in fact this is the very
policy that the Israeli state carries out - Arabs are Semites too.
Still, whether it is dozens or hundreds, some Palestinian jubilation at
this horrific event does not make their violent resistance the violent
occupation of their land anywhere near the same in either type or scale as
the ramming of jets into their targets in a land far away from the actual
in situ cause of the trouble. And especially, it does not justify Israeli
politicians to link their troubles in completely outrageous ways to this
horrific attack, and to use this attack as a cover to undertake further
operations in its war against Palestine.
Attempts by Israel to link its cause of occupation to the attack on
America by bin Laden, who is not a Palestinian, and not supported by any
major Palestinian faction, are beyond the pale and to me show the hideous
core of immorality of the modern Israeli state.
Whatever this rogue state and its apologists say, I listen with the same
disdain I reserve for other states such as that of the Taliban and their
apologists.
regards
scot.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:44:00 +1000
From: Sean Healy <evolver@loud.org.au>
Subject: fwd "CNN USING 1991 FOOTAGE of celebrating Palistinians"?
>----- Forwarded message from whispered media <wm@videoactivism.org>
- -----
>Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:14:03 -0700
>From: whispered media <wm@videoactivism.org>
>Reply-To: whispered media <wm@videoactivism.org>
>Subject: "CNN USING 1991 FOOTAGE of celebrating Palistinians"?
>To: VAN -Video Activist Network <van-l@tao.ca>,v - IMC Video
><imc-video@indymedia.org>
>can anyone confirm this?
>mark/wm
>http://indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=63288&group=webcast
>CNN USING 1991 FOOTAGE of celebrating Palistinians to manipulate you
(english)
>by Marcio 10:32pm Wed Sep 12 '01
> .
>I'd like to add some ideas from here, down south.
>There's an important point in the power of press, specifically the
>power of CNN.
>
>All around the world we are subjected to 3 or 4 huge news distributors,
>and one of them - as you well know - is CNN. Very well, I guess all of
>you have been seeing (just as I've been) images from this company. In
>particular, one set of images called my attencion: the Palestinians
>celebrating the bombing, out on the streets, eating some cake and
making
>funny faces for the camera.
>
>Well, THOSE IMAGES WERE SHOT BACK IN 1991!!! Those are images of
>Palestinians celebrating the invasion of Kuwait! It's simply
>unacceptable that a super-power of cumminications as CNN uses images
>which do not correspond to the reality in talking about so serious an
>issue.
>
>A teacher of mine, here in Brazil, has videotapes recorded in 1991,
with
>the very same images; he's been sending emails to CNN, Globo (the major
>TV network in Brazil) and newspapers, denouncing what I myself classify
>as a crime against the public opinion. If anyone of you has access to
>this kind of files, serch for it. In the meanwhile, I'll try to 'put my
>hands' on a copy of this tape.
>
> But now, think
>for a moment about the impact of such images. Your people
> is hurt,
>emotionally fragile, and this kind broadcast have very high
> possibility of
>causing waves of anger and rage against Palestinians.
> It's simply
>irresponsible to show images such as those.
>
> Finally, I'd
>like to say that we all regret and condemn all that has
> happened in the
>last days; but Nikos has a point here. I really don't
> want to be
>misunderstood here, but the truth is that US government had
> shown no respect
>for other countries in the last decades. In the 60s and
> 70s they had
>halped lots of military coups throughout the world
> (including
>Brazil in 64). Later, with Reagan and Bush Father, the
> Washington
>Consensus have been demolishing the bases of our economies,
> making us more
>and more dependant (and, many of us, prehocupied with
> this situation).
>
> Your current
>president quickly made things worse: Kioto Protocol, Star
> Wars, Colombia
>Plan, the exchange of rain forest for pieces of external
> debt, tha
>abandonment of the position of third party in negotiations
> between IRA and
>England, and between Palestinians and Israel. All those
> mistakes in US
>external politics made your country more hatred than
> before, and, of
>course, more vulnerable.
>
> Listen, I'm NOT
>justifying the terrorist actions that took place in your
> country; but it
>seems to me that, if your leaders had come along another
> path of thoughts
>and actions, you wouldn't be suffering what you are
> now.
>
> Best regards,
>and the hope that everything is resolved for the best of
> all of us
>
> Márcio A. V.
Carvalho
> State University
>of Campinas - Brazil
>
> add your own
comments
>
>
>
>
>--
>Our new documentary premieres November 4th
>at The Roxie Theatre in San Francisco...
>
>Boom: The Sound of Eviction
>http://www.whisperedmedia.org/boom.html
>
>****************************************
>Whispered Media
>wm@videoactivism.org
>P.O. Box 40130
>San Francisco, CA 94140 USA
>(415) 789-8484
>http://www.whisperedmedia.org
>****************************************
>Video Activist Network
>http://www.videoactivism.org
>****************************************
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
------------------------------
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net