The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Free speech and the pro-Israel lobby > Comments

Free speech and the pro-Israel lobby : Comments

By Jake Lynch, published 18/9/2009

So narrow has political debate about Israel and Palestine become that attempts to remind Australians of basic facts are falling foul of censorship.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
1. Israel won the West Bank & Gaza in a war of self-defense forced on it. It did not "occupy" it in a war of aggression, but won it.

2. How can the land be "Occupied Palestine" when there never was a state of Palestine as such? The boundaries of "Palestine" have yet to be determined by proper peace negotiations which have not yet been finalized.

3. Israel has withdrawn from West Bank populated areas as per the Oslo Accords, and from all Gaza since 2005, and therefore cannot be said to "occupy" them. If entering to arrest or kill terrorist leaders the P.A. refuses to stop or jail = "occupation," the Coalition "occupies" Pakistan, and Israel "occupies" Lebanon & Jordan.

4. If restricting supplies at Gaza check-points = "occupation," then Egypt also "occupies" Gaza, the Nazis "occupied" England during WWII, and the Allies "occupied" Nazi Europe which makes WWII incomprehensible.

5. The language of "occupation" buys into the Palestinian narrative, but is untrue as a matter of simple fact. It also ignores that Palestinians wish to occupy & annihilate all of Israel; Hamas states this clearly, Fatah also pushes it with its "Right of Return," and all Palestinians who endorse the "Nakba" view of 1947-8 agree.
Posted by Sadler, Sunday, 20 September 2009 11:45:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho is in error concerning Israeli citizenship criteria.

Actually, there are 1.2 million Arab Muslim citizens of Israel, and ca. 150,000 Christian citizens (Arab and non-Arab), according to Israel's population statistics for 2007 (at that time, there were 5.3 million Jewish citizens - Israel is a very small country). It is actually easier for non-Jews to obtain citizenship in Israel than most foreigners to obtain Australian citizenship; Israel accepted more Vietnamese refugees per capita than any other Western country, and, tellingly, the only Middle Eastern country in which the percentage of Christian citizens in the population did not decline over the past 60 years, but has actually grown, is Israel.

In sharp contrast to Israel, almost all Muslim state statistics show a drastic decline of Christians as a percentage of their population, usually around 50% down, but in some states closer to 90%. This is about the percentage of decline in the Palestinian territory.

Furthermore, Israeli Arabs have their own political parties with their representatives in the Israeli Parliament, have their own newspapers, live securely and peaceably in all Israeli cities, and have all other civil rights usual in a democracy, although it cannot be forgotten that they tend to side with Israel's enemies and the head of Balad, an Arab political party, has actually gone to Lebanon to appear on Hezbollah TV endorsing war with Israel; he was allowed to take up his Israeli Parliament seat again after this (something that would not have been allowed in any other Western democracy at war, hot or cold), but only recently was discovered actually spying for Hezbollah and Syria and materially furthering their aggression, so he has finally been indicted for treasonous behavior.

Finally, Zionism cannot be racist since Jews are not a race. They include Ethiopian Jews, Aryan Jews, Arab Jews (e.g., some Yemenite Jews stem from massive Arab conversions to Judaism before the rise of Islam in Arabia), Chinese Jews and Indian Jews, etc.

Israel is a genuine democracy, Sancho, and even more liberal than most other Western democracies, as a matter of fact.
Posted by Sadler, Monday, 21 September 2009 12:23:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Prof. Lynch

I entirely support your stance against censorship. Both SBS reporters and Students for Palestine should be allowed to have their say.

However I have a question.

Are you a genuine supporter of free speech;

or are you one of those who only defend the right of people to express views you find congenial.

Let's consider three cases.

In 2005 Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard University, lost his job because of his speculations about the reason why women were under-represented in Harvard's science faculty.

See: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/

In 2007 James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix, also lost his job. He expressed the view that Africans were less intelligent than Whites.

See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

Quote:

"…the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion."

In 2005 Professor Andrew Fraser's article defending the White Australia policy was removed from the Deakin University Law Review.

Now Prof. Lynch, are you prepared to defend the right to free speech of Messrs Summers, Watson and Fraser with the same vigour that you defend the rights of Students for Palestine?

For the record I have vigorously defended on these boards and to my fellow Jews the right of Australia's notorious Holocaust denier, Frederik Toben, to have his say.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 21 September 2009 2:11:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This topic always brings up the crazies.

Hey socratease, how have I become an Israeli apologist? I said first I sit on the fence, then I said I lean towards the underdog (ie Palestinians) then I said you would think more Aussies would also lean that way, then I said how come Palestinians don't get a sympathy card.

But you go on with that anger, it sounds cool. Embrace it and nurture it. It's what I enjoy most about OLO. The bitter and twisted are endless amusement. I even got examinator to spit the dummy and start a new blog because I wavered from his topic about dogs!
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 21 September 2009 2:14:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Lynch

In your opinion piece you refer to a stoush between the pro-Israel lobby and the Sydney Peace Foundation, over the decision to award this year’s Sydney Peace Prize to the journalist and film-maker, John Pilger.

The word stoush carries the idea of a fight between 2 groups. As far as I am aware there has been no move by any representative of the Jewish community to fight CPACS over the award. Certainly some members of the Jewish community have criticised the award as have members of the general community. So what? Surely people have a right to disagree with CPACS’ choice. Yet you appear to find this problematic and characterise it as the undesirable action of a lobby group rather than legitimate criticism. Thus I find your use of the word stoush misleading as it gives the impression that there has been an organised Jewish community response which is not the case.

I’m also a little uneasy about the term "Pilger- bashing" directed at Philip Mendes because he has pointed out shortcomings in Pilger’s work. I respect and support your right to find fault with Mendes’ analysis of Pilger. What would your response be if people characterised your criticism as Mendes-bashing? Would you think that was just? Could it be that those who disagree with you are bashers while you are a valid critic? I wonder ………
Posted by Poppyseed, Monday, 21 September 2009 3:22:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prof Lynch,
Don't worry too much about Steven and Sadler both have their own elitist agendas stemming from their views that they are part of the 'God's chosen people' a sub branch of the morally depleted 'might is right mind set'.

Sadler's argument apart from being cherry picked to bolster his position is selective to the 'N'th degree. For his argument of their's right of conquest to be consistent the Nazis were in their right to try and conquer the world as were their obscenities. The Romans were justified in their brutality given they 'won Israel' by conquest ergo might is right. Bollocks.

Steven only want's freedom of speech so he and his ilk can let fly at the Muslims and Arabs in general.

His support for such extremist freedom of speech is because the Jewish PR lobby has a bigger/better than the Arab world.
e.g. their appropriation of the term "the Holocaust" . One could argue that Genghis Khan etc bloody conquests were proportionally several times worse than 'the final solution' oh yes what about the Gypsies statistically more of a Holocaust.

NB it happened and it was an obscenity of mammoth proportions but it doesn't JUSTIFY what is being done today in the name of Israel nor are the Arabs any less blameless in their atrocities.

Besides which he know that no one believes the idiotic drivel anyway save the hopeless bigots. But sees an advantage in being able to vilify Arabs by virtue of ingrained western cultural bias/prejudices. Oh yes, he denies moral responsibility for social harmony too. His argument is predicated such appalling lapses of reality ....who is going to admit that perhaps they're not informed enough to spot the spin.

The point both these posters miss is that there are differences between information, non information (the point of this article)and DISinformation as in bias and plain old down and dirty prejudice regardless how eloquently delivered. The aggression towards you is proof of his real agenda. support for a lessor evil to enable a bigger one would make Goebbels proud.
Posted by examinator, Monday, 21 September 2009 3:23:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy