RugbyRebels

Israeli snipers are mowing down unarmed Palestinian demonstrators like flies today. 18 deaths is the latest count, bringing the total in this month of mostly peaceful protests to over 60. Meanwhile US defies international law and overwhelming international opposition and shifts its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem... & you can be sure the US media will falsely report these marches as "violent" demonstrations.

Update: 25 dead - and by the time you've read this it'll likely be in the 30s...

Donald has his alternative facts, Ken Livingstone has his historical facts, both of them and their supporters come across as bonkers.

37 dead now. It's a bloodbath. Nothing knew about that, however. I wouldn't be surprised if it reaches treble figures before the end of the way.

I'm not sure I agree with you about KL and his supporters, Digby.

I think that there is a far more credible case to be made that it is Livingstone's detractors and those who are calling for him to be expelled from the Labour Party who are suffering from a lack of mental acuity. To get back to the original case under debate on this thread, the Labour Party seems unable to draw a distinction between unjustifiable anti-semitism and an entirely justified and morally essential position which criticises Israel's ongoing flaunting of international law in order to pursue its illegal expantionist policy in Palestine.

The FACT is that in his early days Hitler was an advocate of the settlement of European Jews in a Jewish homeland, thus KL and his supporters are right to state that Hitler supported a form of zionism. I do not see how anyone can draw a connection between this statement of historical record and alleged anti-semitism on the part of KL or his supporters.

Livingstone has not argued, for example, that Hitler supported Zionism therefore there is no moral justification for a zionist state of Israel; he has not argued that Hitler's support for zionism means that all Jews are Nazis. But to listen to some of the Labour Party's anti-semitic witch hunters, you'd think he had.

The Zionist movement in its early stages was supported by a lot of racist non-Jews who just wanted to get them out of Europe. That's fact. & it was also opposed by many Jews who rightfully regarded Europe as their home and didn't like the implications of a latter day Jewish state bang in the middle of Arab territory. The Jewish minority of Palestine itself were also against Zionism and remain so today.

The entirety of the 'guilt complex' could have been better avoided if, in the summer of 1945, the occupying powers had simply moved the locals out and handed over Bavaria.

Then again, it would have meant that Israel was actually in Europe and consequently we'd have had to suffer countless more years of their transsexuals and fat munters clogging up the Eurovision song contest.

Somehow I'm just not buying Hitler was a Zionist. I'd be willing to accept he might have accepted such a process would remove the Jews and thus to some extent the ends of his own thoughts and zionism aligned somewhat, but that's not the same thing as a being zionist. At best it's a cheap piece of politics from Ken, perhaps mostly aimed at getting his name in the papers. And it's not just Ken's comments in isolation, there is a real problem in much of the Labour party.

I say this as someone who'd in the main sit in an anti-zionist camp, and someone who though Ken did a reasonable job as major (actually I've always thought Ken was better with actual responsibility of office and worse without an office leaving him free to pontificate)

A comparison of two headlines :

"Dozens of Palestinians killed in US embassy protests" (Guardian)

"Israeli army opens fire on Palestinian demonstrators: 900 wounded 41 dead"
(Volkskrant)

Both are left wing papers, but the spin is clear. By using passive voice and omitting the actor, the Guardian shows itself as nothing better than a bog standard propaganda rag like all the rest.

Or, perhaps, the Guardian is targeted at a readership that is capable of reading beyond the headline and, even if they do not, is capable of drawing the necessary inferences from it to arrive at the right conclusion?

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Or, perhaps, the Guardian is targeted at a readership that is capable of reading beyond the headline and, even if they do not, is capable of drawing the necessary inferences from it to arrive at the right conclusion?

Why should we infer when we can be told? Why guess about something when you can be simply informed of the facts?

Because the intent or at least the effect is propagandistic in that it reduces the emotional impact.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Or, perhaps, the Guardian is targeted at a readership that is capable of reading beyond the headline and, even if they do not, is capable of drawing the necessary inferences from it to arrive at the right conclusion?

I don't think you understand the need to adopt an emotional tone which may have little bearing to reality in ramming the one true perception down peoples' throats

Zhivago wrote:A comparison of two headlines :

"Dozens of Palestinians killed in US embassy protests" (Guardian)

"Israeli army opens fire on Palestinian demonstrators: 900 wounded 41 dead"
(Volkskrant)

Both are left wing papers, but the spin is clear. By using passive voice and omitting the actor, the Guardian shows itself as nothing better than a bog standard propaganda rag like all the rest.

Good point. Guardian's got nothing on most of the mainstream US press, however, as they continue to refer to these protests as violent. Istanbul's Gezi Park demonstrations were more violent than these - and the Turks were roundly condemned (justifiable) for killing about half a dozen people over a period of a few weeks.

I disagree, Zhivago.

I think that the Guardian headline is no less horrifying for its imprecision in pointing out exactly how many had been killed at the time of going to press or in pointing the trigger finger of blame at those responsible.

Indeed, I would say that the Guardian headline is the more compelling as it, quite rightly, infers that while the IDF may have been the ones firing the guns, the pretext for the whole murderous event is a collective responsibility that largely rests with the US decision to open its Embassy in Jerusalem.

Digby wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Or, perhaps, the Guardian is targeted at a readership that is capable of reading beyond the headline and, even if they do not, is capable of drawing the necessary inferences from it to arrive at the right conclusion?

I don't think you understand the need to adopt an emotional tone which may have little bearing to reality in ramming the one true perception down peoples' throats

Are you seriously telling me that the Volkskrant headline reflects the reality less than the Guardian one?

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I disagree, Zhivago.

I think that the Guardian headline is no less horrifying for its imprecision in pointing out exactly how many had been killed at the time of going to press or in pointing the trigger finger of blame at those responsible.

Indeed, I would say that the Guardian headline is the more compelling as it, quite rightly, infers that while the IDF may have been the ones firing the guns, the pretext for the whole murderous event is a collective responsibility that largely rests with the US decision to open its Embassy in Jerusalem.

That last point is an interesting angle, although I'd disagree with you regarding which is more compelling.

In that case you are effectively saying that the headline seems to highlight the US responsibility (although in doing so reducing the actions of The IDF) ?

rowan wrote:Guardian's got nothing on most of the mainstream US press, however, as they continue to refer to these protests as violent.

We really do need to ask exactly what it is about responding to a stone-throwing crowd with live ammunition that constitutes proportionality?

There is, in my view, nothing wrong in describing a protest as violent when a large crowd is throwing stones with the aim or intent of causing injury. There is something decidedly wrong with responding to such 'violence' through the disproportionate use of lethal force.

I am afraid that we are in real danger of violently agreeing with each other here. It doesn't much matter what the broadsheets have to say about it.

Zhivago wrote: In that case you are effectively saying that the headline seems to highlight the US responsibility (although in doing so reducing the actions of The IDF) ?

I am saying that the Guardian headline includes a reference to the US' part in igniting the protest; I do not suggest for a moment that this detratcts from or reduces the criminal responsibility of the IDF for its disproportionate lethal response.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Zhivago wrote: In that case you are effectively saying that the headline seems to highlight the US responsibility (although in doing so reducing the actions of The IDF) ?

I am saying that the Guardian headline includes a reference to the US' part in igniting the protest; I do not suggest for a moment that this detratcts from or reduces the criminal responsibility of the IDF for its disproportionate lethal response.

Well it clearly omits mention of who is doing the killing, so on what basis is it not reduced?

Well call me a bit of a bluff old stater of the bleeding obvious, but the IDF has tended to maintain a pretty rigid monopoly in the killing of Palestinians, so the question as to who is doing it isn't one that needs emphasising.

How about I write the headline and you tell me what you think:

"How many more unarmed Palestinians will the IDF kill when the French move their Embassy to occupied Jerusalem?"

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Or, perhaps, the Guardian is targeted at a readership that is capable of reading beyond the headline and, even if they do not, is capable of drawing the necessary inferences from it to arrive at the right conclusion?

I don't think you understand the need to adopt an emotional tone which may have little bearing to reality in ramming the one true perception down peoples' throats

Are you seriously telling me that the Volkskrant headline reflects the reality less than the Guardian one?

I didn't read either one

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Well call me a bit of a bluff old stater of the bleeding obvious, but the IDF has tended to maintain a pretty rigid monopoly in the killing of Palestinians, so the question as to who is doing it isn't one that needs emphasising.

It also omits the scale though... Which leaves open varying causes of death. Deaths at protests can occur by accident. Perhaps you like to jump to assumptions, but I prefer facts.

Zhivago wrote:
It also omits the scale though... Which leaves open varying causes of death. Deaths at protests can occur by accident. Perhaps you like to jump to assumptions, but I prefer facts.

No, Mucker, it doesn't. You're in danger of losing track. It states 'Dozens killed'!

Let's not get into a ludicrous disagreement over the petty semantics of newspaper headlines when it is abundantly clear that we both feel the same sense of outrage that people are being killed with apparent impunity.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Well call me a bit of a bluff old stater of the bleeding obvious, but the IDF has tended to maintain a pretty rigid monopoly in the killing of Palestinians, so the question as to who is doing it isn't one that needs emphasising.

How about I write the headline and you tell me what you think:

"How many more unarmed Palestinians will the IDF kill when the French move their Embassy to occupied Jerusalem?"

"Israeli army kills dozens of Palestinians and injures hundreds more during US embassy protests."

Would be the most informative headline while still being concise.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
It also omits the scale though... Which leaves open varying causes of death. Deaths at protests can occur by accident. Perhaps you like to jump to assumptions, but I prefer facts.

No, Mucker, it doesn't. You're in danger of losing track. It states 'Dozens killed'!

Let's not get into a ludicrous disagreement over the petty semantics of newspaper headlines when it is abundantly clear that we both feel the same sense of outrage that people are being killed with apparent impunity.

Ok ok true

Zhivago wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Well call me a bit of a bluff old stater of the bleeding obvious, but the IDF has tended to maintain a pretty rigid monopoly in the killing of Palestinians, so the question as to who is doing it isn't one that needs emphasising.

How about I write the headline and you tell me what you think:

"How many more unarmed Palestinians will the IDF kill when the French move their Embassy to occupied Jerusalem?"

"Israeli army kills dozens of Palestinians and injures hundreds more during US embassy protests."

Would be the most informative headline while still being concise.

Hey now hold on a fecking minute!

From the Guardian Live - "Israeli troops kill dozens of Palestinians in protests as US embassy opens in Jerusalem – live updates."

Yer a fecking mole, Zhivago!