tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post8511721208612044104..comments2024-03-28T23:49:28.343+00:00Comments on David Lindsay: Is It Nothing To You, All Ye Who Pass By?David Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post-48082598091413198842007-06-21T23:51:00.000+01:002007-06-21T23:51:00.000+01:00Oh, your last statement is completely false. Bush'...Oh, your last statement is completely false. Bush's real reaction to 9/11 was two-fold: he withdrew his father's troops from Saudi Arabia (America's closest ally in the world anyway, never mind under a Bush), and he declared himself in favour of a Palestinian state, making him the first President ever to use the term while in office.<BR/><BR/>Thus, to give him his due, he secured the American homeland, on which there has been no subsequent attack in nearly six years and counting.<BR/><BR/>But then, look at the actions of his predecessors: which administration, exactly, has ever been as pro-Israel as Europeans tend to assert is the default American position, and as you would cleraly like to be the American default position?<BR/><BR/>How many people read the Guardian or the Independent, compared to the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail or the Sun? Let me tell you that it's not very many.<BR/><BR/>And at least the newspapers in the second category report these matters, albeit from a pro-Israeli perspective. The US seems to have some sort of blackout. If you can explain this except in terms of who owns the media there, then I'd be fascinated to hear that explanation, I'm afraid.<BR/><BR/>And the BBC doesn't "eat crow". Ever. That's just not the BBC. If you don't believe me, ask Tony Blair...David Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post-60051104578061611162007-06-21T20:21:00.000+01:002007-06-21T20:21:00.000+01:00David,According to you, the papers in Britain are ...David,<BR/><BR/>According to you, the papers in Britain are pro-Israel. Is The Guardian pro-Israel? Is The Independent pro-Israel? Did The Times not claim, without a shred of evidence - only the allegation of one person - that Israel had massacred Palestinian Arabs at Jenin? To note: not one major American paper so asserted. All noted that such was alleged but that there was no corroboration. The BBC also asserted a massacre only, later, to eat crow on it.<BR/><BR/>Now, the fact is that your country is obsessed with Israel. The fact is that you are as well. The US, by contrast, has maintained close to the same policy since the 1970's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post-3998900370789278282007-06-21T18:42:00.000+01:002007-06-21T18:42:00.000+01:00Oh, and I don't knwo how I let this one go before:...Oh, and I don't knwo how I let this one go before: it is jaw-dropping to be accused by an American of over-friendliness with Saudi Arabia!<BR/><BR/>Saudi Arabia is America's closest ally in the world, and vice versa; while the principal beneficiary of the BAE money was one of George W Bush's closest personal fiends, Prince Bandar, "Bandar Bush".David Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post-12873166241248047272007-06-21T17:58:00.000+01:002007-06-21T17:58:00.000+01:00On the so-called corruption that isn't (it's just ...On the so-called corruption that isn't (it's just a Labour Government doing what a Labour Government is supposed to do, albeit surprisingly, and rather late in the day), see http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com/2007/06/separation-indeed.html<BR/><BR/>Everything that I set out is entirely factual: almost every newspaper actually bought in Britain on a daily basis is very strongly pro-Israel to an extent abandoned by most Israeli Jews themselves, and never held at all by many of them.<BR/><BR/>The BBC only looks pro-Palestinian compared to that view, the same view that controls the governing party's central apparatus, dominates the parliamentary section of the main opposition party, and is on the rise within the third party.<BR/><BR/>Of course I applaud the success of British Jews. Their prominence both in journalism and in the organisational side of entertainment is how they came to be so prominent in the BBC. Which they are, as the BBC itself says (even if it chooses, for some unknown reason, to employ the euphemism of "ethnic minorities"), and as anyone observing it can see. Tell that to Fox News!<BR/><BR/>And again I say that there has been nothing strikingly pro-Israel about the Bush Administration. For all his other faults, Bush is (even if this is not saying much) the best President of the United States that the Palestinians have ever had.David Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25656996.post-7221326493818928542007-06-21T17:41:00.000+01:002007-06-21T17:41:00.000+01:00David,Most American observers disagree with you, b...David,<BR/><BR/>Most American observers disagree with you, believing that your country is less than supportive of Israel and, at the same time, obsessively in support of the political program called <I>Palestinianism</I> - which is something different than wanting to help actual Palestinian Arabs -, rather than interest in resolving the dispute.<BR/><BR/>I note that were the pro-Israeli lobby really to have influence and power you see, Israel's situation would be far different. They would have British and American troops doing their dirty work, fighting Hamas and Hezbollah and Fatah and forcing Palestinian Arabs to give up their dreams.<BR/><BR/> That, of course, is not happening. What is happening is that those who support Israel have some influence but other groups, most notably the Saudis and other Gulf state countries, have far greater influence. <BR/><BR/>In fact, judging from your country's papers, that influence, most particularly from Saudi Arabia, includes the government shutting down investigations of bribery and other criminal activity because such an investigation might jeopardize lucrative deals with Saudi Arabia. Such ought to inform you who jumps to what paymaster.<BR/><BR/>I might also note that all of the European countries have followed the same path, trading lucrative contracts for support of the Arab League position on the Arab Israeli dispute. Arabs, in fact, have a whole lot more money, all told, to throw at Europeans than do Israel's supporters. <BR/><BR/>As for your point that Jews do not hold the job of sweeper and the like, you should applaud that Jews have educated their young so that they contribute to society and are not a burden on society. You, evidently, find that troubling.<BR/><BR/>Again, David: Why your dislike of Zionism? Why your dislike of Israel? Why your attempt to find a conspiracy in ordinary lobbying activities? It all seems pretty irrational and silly.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the use of terminology, the term "occupation" is a legal term, not a description of the situation. The reality is that there is a dispute about the land. Calling it an occupation or disputed land, however, does not alter the reality on the ground. The problem ought, if it can, be solved. If not, we shall all have to live with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com