Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Wednesday, September 14, 2005

I like his thinking

The following letter appears in today's Melbourne Age:

"SURE, we'd all think a lot better of the Muslims if they showed more tolerance of other people's religions. But try to convince me it wasn't a calculated propaganda exercise that the Israelis left the synagogues standing among the wreckage on their way out of Gaza, knowing that the world's headlines would run with their destruction by the Palestinians."

Gordon Drennan, Burton, SA

Meron Benvenisti, Former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, wrote recently that the Israelis probably hoped the destruction of synagogues would be a propaganda coup. Furthermore:

"The Palestinians may wonder whether the principle that one must not harm holy sites applies only to synagogues, or to abandoned mosques and churches as well. Does the demand that the Palestinians - or an international body - take responsibility for the synagogues apply also to the Israeli government vis-a-vis the abandoned mosques in Israel? And if we are in such a hurry to expose the Palestinians' shame to the world, are we ready to expose Israel's shameful behaviour vis-a-vis the Moslem holy sites as well?

"Out of some 140 village mosques that were abandoned due to the war in 1948, some 100 were totally torn down. The rest, about 40, are in advanced stages of collapse and neglect, or are used by the Jewish residents for other purposes."

15 Comments:

Blogger Shabadoo said...

Yep, once again, the Palestinians aren't responsible for their lousy behaviour, it's all the fault of those crafty Jooooos...

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 5:10:00 pm  
Blogger uhuh said...

you clown...what would you reasonably expect to happen in such circumstances?...regardless of the countries/peoples involved.

a community has just had the yoke of almost 40 years of debilitating foreign occupation (semi)thrown off, an occupation which is still brutally maintained in other significant parts of the land, and the dispossessed are pilloried for venting their relief/frustration/defiance/anger on a few abandoned structures, whatever their former purpose, which are undeniably and understandably viewed as nothing more and nothing less than symbols of that occupation?

What where they supposed to do?...turn the joints into lovingly maintained shrines to their ongoing woes?

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:33:00 pm  
Blogger anthony said...

Shabadoo, it's just a Synagogue, a Jewish holy place. It doesn’t matter! The Palestinians are allowed to destroy these because of 40 years of occupation by the evil expansionist Zionists. They get lots of bonuses now- like the right to kill an infinite number of Jews. Maybe if they can kill enough in a single intifida, they’ll get another seat at the UN?

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:11:00 pm  
Blogger uhuh said...

whether it's a jewish holy place or a bloody outdoor dunny is irrelevant you facetious imbecile, the point is it's on someone elses land.

hypothetically reverse the situation and try considering the fate of a few abandoned mosques lying around in previously long-occupied israeli territory...

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:48:00 pm  
Blogger Shabadoo said...

oh this is ridiculous...anyone remember the lovely treatment of Joseph's Tomb by the Palestinians in 1996?

Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:13:00 am  
Blogger uuhuh said...

naturally there's a litany of tit-for-tat incidents, on a variety of destructive levels...let's exchange volleys shall we?, highly constructive.

bottom line: there's an occupier, and an occupied, and while the scale of harm routinely inflicted by the former comfortably dwarfs that of the latter, until the occupation ends, the position which produces that sort of obfuscatory bleating is equally dwarfed.

Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:06:00 am  
Blogger Shabadoo said...

uhuh, learn your islamic history. the entire religion's grth was/is based on occupation, subjection and forced conversion, and the destruction of any and all local culture, both physical and socio-political and replacement with a stark desert/Arab culture. (remember the bamiyan buddhas?)

go read naipaul's brilliant "among the believers", among others, for more on this. for these people to be whinging about losing a little land after starting a war of aggression is laughably offensive.

is there any arab/palestinian/muslim excess you won't try and excuse?

Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:54:00 am  
Blogger Irfan said...

er, is it just me? or do i get the feeling that all those mosques and churches the IDF and the mad settlers have destroyed over the years just don't figure? does the blood of a thousand arab goyim really not even equate to one jewish fingernail?

Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:21:00 am  
Blogger uuhuh said...

i can do without the sanctimony thanks...any other homework you'd like to set?

but, i see...so in principle, the illegal occupation of another's land in the here and now is well and good then?...pefectly ok.

it's difficult to think of a greater "excess".

and to think the occupied have the temerity to whinge about their subjugation too!...outrageous indeed.

just more side-stepping and obfuscation...O-C-C-U...go on, spell it...there's your homework for the evening.

Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:27:00 am  
Blogger Glenn Condell said...

'go read naipaul's brilliant "among the believers", '

Naipaul's an Anglophile racist; brilliant writer I agree, but a racist nonetheless. Wagner was too, you'll recall but it was Jews he hated. You don't go to such people for moral or political guidance.

'for these people to be whinging about losing a little land'

for a moment there I thought you were referring to the settlers...

uhuh has it right. Get off their land for God's sake and they'll stop blowing you up. Simple.

And irf, thanks for reminding me of that fingernail quote - wasn't it from the rabbi who performed the funeral service for Baruch Goldstein? A man who murdered 29 Muslims at prayer in a mosque, a doctor who refused to treat non-Jews, a man who had a shrine dedicated to him by fellow extremists...

Zionist ugliness loses nothing in comparison to the Islamicists. Likudniks are just lucky enough to be a protected species in Western political discourse, but the manufactured prevalence of a Likudnik preference in Western media and polities generally may not last much longer.

Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:55:00 am  
Blogger Shabadoo said...

Glenn:

How is Naipaul a racist? I've read about half a dozen of his works, and some of them are controversial, but I don't think they're racist. A House for Mr. Biswas, by the way, is one of the most beautiful novels of the 20th Century. Wagner, yes, and he certainly got co-opted as well, but I think you're making the mistake of tarring with the R-word, rather than engaging his points. Don't fall for the Ant mistake where veryone who disagrees with you is "a vile, bigoted racist".

In terms of "get off their land", where does that stop? Andalusia? Osama's referred plenty of times to that. And that's the problem with an expansionist political religion - give 'em an inch, yada yada yada. Think about it: Why aren't Greek Orthodox out blowing up shopping centres in Riyadh because of the fall of Constantinople ("Return the Hagia Sophia, and we'll stop!"), while Muslims are beheading Buddhists in southern Thailand? Methinks it's about a lot more than pushing the Jews into the sea - though judging from Hamas' latest statements, it's still high on the agenda.

Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:23:00 pm  
Blogger uuhuh said...

"where does that stop?"

yes, quite pertinent to hark back centuries and beyond to legitimise an illegal occupation that's taking place in the here and now.

so one's to assume that in 2005, if one state has the ability to invade and claim as its own the territory of another, they can simply do so, is that correct?...that's fine...i suppose that also applies to the concept of pushing jews into the sea at some future point??...if that were to eventuate, that's kosher too then?...stop your whinging, what's done is done and just chin up and get on with it?...by virtue of the fact that, you know, it's only a "little land" and besides where's one reasonably supposed to draw the bloody line?

as an aside, there weren't any U.N. resolutions covering the occupation of Constantinople from memory.

Thursday, September 15, 2005 1:28:00 pm  
Blogger Shabadoo said...

Israel was created essentially by the fiat of U.N. partition, and the stated goal of Hamas, the PLO, etc, for anyone with ears to listen, has been the destruction of the entire State of Israel from day one - not just the 'illegally' occupied territories. Why don't they ever cop it for attempting to violate this very large U.N. project, i.e., destory Israel?

I don't think anyone should waste time harking back to glory days long gone by, but Osama does all the time, as do other Muslim fundamentalists. That's my point. If the West abandoned Israel, as Ant, etc, advocate and left the country on its own, the Islamics would destroy it in two days and then be on about some other grievance against the West. (Of course, we'd also get to see the cinders dance in a pretty large portion of the Middle East in the process, so it would be a largely phyrric victory).

By the way, if you're against harking back centuries, do you think its as silly as I do when some politician gives a speech by opening it "we recognize the traditional owners of this land", or do you think Australia is also an illegal occupation? (And if so, why aren't poor and dispossesed Aborigines suicide bombing?)

Thursday, September 15, 2005 1:41:00 pm  
Blogger uuhuh said...

actually i do in some respects, but while one can draw similarities in terms of the end-sum effect on the dispossessed, in the grand scheme of things the domestic scenario here is hardly comparable to that which continues to unfold in Palestine/Isreal...apples and oranges, both chronologically and literally.

and in answer to your initial Q, no i don't think it's silly, i think it's respectful but i also think it's woefully inadequate given the broader state of affairs in this area and the mammoth physical and attitudinal efforts necessary to improve the situation.

though while the lot of our indigenous population is a largely deplorable one, we don't have one set of state-sanctioned laws for white australians and another set of openly discriminatory laws for non-white australians...our state doesn't exist in law purely for the benefit of a chosen segment of australian society whereby everyone else is a 2nd class citizen and treated accordingly or worse...our national record with regard to indigenous affairs is lamentable at best and unworthy of defence, but in light of the attempted comparison, we're not out there bulldozing entire outback communities on the basis that a member of that community commits a crime...we're not banishing aborigines abroad to diminish their numbers and expropriate their property, or extinguishing their citizenship (though it appears something of that sort's now on the cards), we're not walling up swathes of countryside so that in-effect they become oversized prison camps upon which we maintain a military and economic stranglehold...we don't have our armed forces unaccountably gunning them down or blowing up homes, communities and varied innocents from helicopter gunships...and whilst our present relationship with the U.S. is a cosy one, we're not receiving the gargantuan level of political or U.S. taxpayer-funded financial support Israel's annually awarded with to continue perpetrating such crimes...and crimes they are, which continue as we speak...i suppose over time with some notable exceptions, in dealing with our indigenous 'problem' our elected governments here have preferred a less militarised, and certainly in recent times a more neglectful approach.

the comparison's a pretty shabby one i'm afraid...and doesn't diminish the scale or the illegality of the crime in any way...in this country, there's the scope and the will i think to co-exist as equals in somewhat of a bi-national state which more extensively recognizes and includes its indigenous component, a pipe dream as it might seem in the current socio-political climate...an even bigger pipe dream, but perhaps a similar model could be achievable in palestine/israel over time if the respective populations are so inclined, but before talk of bi-national states it might be helpful to stop the protagonists from killing eachother first, and that's unlikely to occur unless the occupation, you know, the one happening right now that's apparently ok, ends.

Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:56:00 pm  
Blogger anthony said...

"we don't have our armed forces unaccountably gunning them down or blowing up homes, communities and varied innocents from helicopter gunships"

Aaaah thats right, I almost forgot... the war crimes of the IDF that they manage to cover up so well, because the Zionists control the media. Unless, of course, we're looking at shoddy one-man websites expressing the 'truth' (or alternatively, PA or Arab controlled press)

No doubt you assume, in true Chomsky fashion, that if western media outlets arn't publishing it, but the government controlled arab press is, then the latter is revealing the truth.

And when Amnesty says something you like (despite being terribly wrong in most cases), you'll take that too. Any deviation from your program is obviously relying on Jew-sponsored lies...

It will be interesting to see how much attention Loewenstein is going to pay to 'war crimes' in his book.

Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:10:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home