Aljazeera’s Recent Gaza Coverage

17 Responses to “Aljazeera’s Recent Gaza Coverage”

1. ras babi babiker on April 4th, 2008 2:23 am

   Imagine…
   Peace and love covering the middle east
   Imagine…
   Our Sudan without beast
   Imagine…
   No radical jews
   No radical Arabs
   Imagine God
   does it for us
   Imagine…
   almajnuun
   happy in his land
   peace will cover the middle east
   Sudan will throw al-bashir like a tin
   Jews
   Arabs
   oh God
   Of Moises
   of Mohamed
   help us

2. Andrew Brehm on April 4th, 2008 8:29 am

   “No radical jews”

   Define “radical Jew”.

3. suzanne on April 4th, 2008 12:36 pm

   @Andrew, I’d consider a radical Jew a man such as Baruch Goldstein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein

   though i’d rather call him a crazy fuckhead.

4. Andrew Brehm on April 4th, 2008 12:45 pm

   “Baruch Goldstein”

   I don’t know anyone who supports that guy and I don’t think there are many of his type. I think Israel considers his group a terrorist organisation.

   While I agree that there should be less of his kind, I hardly see how it would significantly change the middle east if there were no “radical Jews”, given that radical Jews are already a very small minority, are considered terrorists by Jewish and Israeli authorities, and simply don’t have the power to change how the middle east behaves.

5. Ait-hamad on April 4th, 2008 1:05 pm

   Suzanne,
   We have to make a clear distinction here. Sure, Goldstein was a radical nutcake of religious radical branch of Judaism, but I hope you did not mention him only because of his chainsaw massacre at Hebron. Many of these nutcakes can be potential Goldsteins. In fact, I am very surprised why the followers of Goldstein do not go on a killing spree from time to time given the sporadic shootings by Palestinians and rock throwing harrassement on these God seeking delusional Westbank jewish settlers.

   Here is my definition:
   Radical Jew =
   Someone politically and ACTIVELY aspiring to GAIN (we are here beyond thinking here ok) TOTAL control of Judea and Samaria, as lands of ancient Jewish kingdom of David, by any mean necessary. Taking lands, evicting local population, and building illegal settlements.

   All of this in the name of GOD. If this GOD is real and omnipresent he is certainly a stupid and ignorant GOD. Basically I agree with you a Goldstein being a fuckhead. Perhaps he was so because he pray to a Fuckhead GOD. This goes to the Hamas’s GOD too.

   Both of these groups are the real problems of middle east. It is religeous bigotry and tyranny.

6. Don Cox on April 4th, 2008 2:07 pm

   “Imagine God
   does it for us”

   That will never happen. If we want peace and prosperity and freedom, we have to organise them ourselves. God has never helped in the past, and will not help in the future.

7. suzanne on April 4th, 2008 3:56 pm

   @andrew, you’re right. i did not take the condemnation by the state and many israelis into account.

   @Ait-hamad: if a jew is for taking back judea and samaria, it’s not necessarily for religious means. as is proven on many sites on the westbank there are traces of former jewish presence there. therefore i believe that a jew should be able to live there as well, without fear. just as there are arabs living in umm al fahm, nazareth, in the negev and many villages in the north without fear.

   Anyway, though i’m a believer, i agree with you. doing immoral deeds in the name of god i’d consider radical.

   @don cox, god gave us free will

8. Andrew Brehm on April 4th, 2008 4:07 pm

   “Someone politically and ACTIVELY aspiring to GAIN (we are here beyond thinking here ok) TOTAL control of Judea and Samaria, as lands of ancient Jewish kingdom of David, by any mean necessary. Taking lands, evicting local population, and building illegal settlements.”

   Include “murdering local population” and you would have the Jewish counterpart for the Arab extremist. Except that the Arab extremist doesn’t care if he was attacked and took the land while defending his life.

   By “illegal settlements” do you mean villages that are illegal because they are built by Jews, i.e. including those on land legally bought or owned by Jews for a thousand years?

   Anyway, the “take total control and evict local population” crowd among the Jews are small in number, have no support among the greater Jewish and Israeli populations, and their movements (like Kahane’s) are considered illegal by the Israeli government. Plus they are less radical than the Arab radicals (for example, they do not advocate the extermination of all Arabs, killing of the Arabs they want to get rid of etc..)

   The type of “radical” you describe wouldn’t be called “radical” unless he is Jewish.

   I myself SUPPORT Poland’s taking of German lands after WW2, accept the fact that they evicted the German populations, and have absolutely no problem with them building towns in the areas.

   Does that make me a Polish radical or a normal EU citizen?

   If I supported annexing Judaea and Samaria, evicting the Arab population and building towns in the areas, I would be a “radical”, I suppose.

9. suzanne on April 4th, 2008 5:04 pm

   well evicting a population is radical, andrew.

10. Ait-hamad on April 4th, 2008 5:45 pm

    Andrew,
    Do not play dumb. You know very well what I mean by illegal settlements. You have the habit of putting every word into a question. I guess I am going to hear from you next time saying : “What is illegal?”.

    The state of Isreal was created by the UN in 1948. It did not include any of the these biblical regions nor were claims of them by the founding fathers of the state. Had the Arabs agree to the partition then, the map of Israel would have been very different than what it is now. But the Arabs were not foreseers of the future, they really thought they could detroy the newly emerging state. The state of Israel was created on secular ideas and not religious. And do not waste time trying to ask questions about what is “radical” when you do not want to accept any of the definition given by the readers. I suggest checking the webster dictionary then come back with some innovative ideas to add. Radicalism can both be from the left or the right of the political spectrum.

    Suzanne,
    Sure everyone should be allowed to live where ever they want even in Samaria and Judea, that’s my position too. The problems for not allowing the other to live there emanate from these radical nutcakes and religious self-righteous bigots from both sides. The radical Hamas now (and the radical PLO back in time, now moderate) wanted all jews evicted from what they call their land called Palestine which never existed at all. The nutcakes of the Kahane groups want also to live in their biblical lands alone. Both groups are obstacles to fair peace, because they want the lands all for themselves.

    I understand that both groups do not reflect the views of population as a whole (as Andrew commented), but who gives a shit? what does this have to do with defining what is “radical”. We are trying to define radical. Both groups are radicals in their POLITICAL views because they do not want to compromise their twisted GOD given rights to the land. Kill this God and perhaps things will turn up ok.

11. suzanne on April 4th, 2008 6:04 pm

    correction to what ait-hamad said: they believe (incorrectly) that their god tells them to behave the way they do. they’re just brainwashed by people who abused religion for their own goals.

12. Ait-hamad on April 4th, 2008 6:26 pm

    Suzanne,
    Good try. It will not work (for me at least). You cannot correct me, I meant what I said. You cannot sanitaze the word of GOD.

    Check the Torah. You will see the saying of the promise land of Canaan. (Without adding the verse of Deuteronomy that order the killing of men, women and children). I used to know all the verses.

    Check to Coran and rejoice the sourate of devine order to evicts all the unbeleivers from the land of Islam.

    Looks like orders from the allmighty. You can delude yourself with the thought that GOD ideas are pure and transparent, but it is you delusion. There is no brainwashing here.

13. suzanne on April 4th, 2008 8:47 pm

    where in the books do you see that god is saying that any of (wo)mankind should fight for land by al means necessary?

14. Andrew Brehm on April 5th, 2008 12:58 am

    “You know very well what I mean by illegal settlements.”

    I wanted to know whether you agree with the term “illegal” in that case.

    I don’t see any international or other law that would make those settlements illegal other than arbitrary decisions referring to exactly those settlements.

    It is illegal for a government to MOVE populations into occupied territory, but it doesn’t say that individuals or groups must not buy land and settle. And some of the settlements are located on land bought from local owners or land that was owned by Jews before Jordan evicted them and took the land.

    I don’t consider all the Jewish settlements in Judaea and Samaria illegal and I don’t know which _law_ would make them illegal.

    If there is a law that makes it illegal to settle in occupied land, then I suppose lots of countries have broken it, including the Soviet Union, the US, France, Great Britain, and Jordan. And if there isn’t a law, then the settlements are not illegal. I don’t know the text of that law.

    But if there is a law that says that ONLY Israel’s settlements in occupied land are illegal, then I won’t accept the law.

    “well evicting a population is radical, andrew.”

    Nevertheless, I accept it in the case of Germans in Pomerania and Silesia in what is now a part of Poland. What I wanted to know is whether that makes me a Polish radical or not. (I am not Polish, of course, but we are judging opinions, not nationalities!)

    I would even go as far as accepting the eviction of Jews from Arab countries (although I would still ask for compensation). Does that make me an Arab radical?

    Incidentally, I do not support the eviction of Arabs from Israel or the West Bank, and would not accept it if it happened.

    I guess that makes me a Polish radical although I am not Polish and an Arab radical although I am a Zionist.

    “Both groups are obstacles to fair peace, because they want the lands all for themselves.”

    Kahane’s nutters certainly have no impact. The Arabs are certainly not forced to find a compromise with them, and the world does not condemn any Arab leader for refusing to talk to Kahane’s racists.

    That’s the difference between Jewish and Arab radicals.

    Perhaps we should let the radicals on both sides talk, especially since Jewish radicals (Kahane) seem to share the general opinions of Arab moderates (the PLO), except with “Jews” and “Arabs” reversed.

    Let Hamas and Kahane’s nutters find a compromise. Both want the entire land for their clientele. Israel does not, hence shouldn’t be bothered with the problem.

15. Andrew Brehm on April 5th, 2008 1:05 am

    “And do not waste time trying to ask questions about what is “radical” when you do not want to accept any of the definition given by the readers.”

    You can evade the questions, but that doesn’t mean you are right. I didn’t doubt any of the definitions given. I just want to know if they apply regardless of nationality.

    Why are some things “radical” when pursued by Jews or Israeli while they are not considered “radical” when others do them?

    Evicting populations is either radical or it isn’t. But it cannot be “radical” when Israel would do it without being radical when others do it.

    Claiming that radical Jews exist that are an obstacle to peace despite the fact that they have no relevant support in Israel or among Jews is not very useful. If Kahane’s nutters didn’t exist, the middle east would be exactly the same same as it is now. They don’t have any influence on it.

    Nobody talks to them and nobody is condemned for not talking to them.

    There is no international attempt to make the PLO talk to Kahane’s nutters. But many have proposed that Israel talk to Hamas. And from what I have seen I would put Kahane and Arafat in the same league, while Hamas are more radical than both.

16. ras babi babiker on April 5th, 2008 1:37 am

    Imagine…
    love over comes…
    you and I
    we are small ones
    in this wild living
    we do need
    one the other
    shake hands
    love each other
    imagine…
    dark skin
    light skin
    yellow skin
    your colour has no meaning
    we are born to die again
    Arabs and Jews
    peace or war
    choice
    the best one
    live together
    ignore
    the radical ones
    in one land
    imagine
    what you can do
    together as one
    imagine
    I am not wrong
    imagine..

17. Ahmad al-Safawi on April 5th, 2008 1:36 pm

    The fact, Andrew, is: Thats just the way it is! You have to get used to it. In many cases “Radical” depend on its context. For example, Schleswig-Holstein was once danish. In the years following its takeover, being a danish partisan who wants it reunited with Denmark and building of danish settlements to increase the danish population would not be considered radical. However, if someone presents the same view today, he would be considered radical - by germans and danes alike.

    But in some cases, i do not believe that the label “radical” depends on its context. If one presents the view that he wants all jews expelled from all arab countries, i would oppose this, and i would in fact consider it a radical opinion. However sometines this view is so mainstream that the label “radical” would instead be given to people who want all jews in arab lands KILLED - as the former view, though radical in itself, is so mainstream that the latter would be given the title radical, and compared to this, the former seems “moderate”.

    Of course, i support neither, and as i expressed on my blog, i regard the jewish exodus from Egypt as a loss.

    Same is the case in Israel and Palestine. To you and many israelis, Fatah might seem radical and might held certain radical views, but in the West and the Arab World, it is seen as “moderate”, as opposed to Hamas. In Israel, Likud is seen as “radical” among arabs as opposed to the Labour who is “moderate”, but if Kahane and the Likud were the to main fractions in Israeli politics, i think that view would change, and Likud would instead be considered “moderate”.

    This came out long but i hope you understand what i am trying to say.

    I am planning to write something about my split regarding the Palestine-issue soon on my blog. Perhaps you should look by.

Leave a Reply