The Irish Examiner's 60-year retrospective in amnesia

by Miriam - MediaBite Wed May 07, 2008 12:40

I think it was Chomsky who coined the expression 'unpeople' to describe the victims of western imperialism. Mark Curtis reviews Pilgers book 'Freedom Next Time' in which Pilger has described the unpeopling of various parts of the world.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1788937,00.html

by Miriam Wed May 07, 2008 13:24

Scroll down to the article at the link:

http://counterpunch.com/avnery05052008.html

by Babs Wed May 07, 2008 22:22

Are ' nt you all jealous ?

by EasyLikeSundayMorning. Wed May 07, 2008 23:05

When I'm sixty, I hope to be at peace with my neighbours. I get on fairly well with most of them, haven't pinched any land, evicted them, built nukes, spent a fortune on 'conventional military hardware' or had any of them try to retaliate with crude explosives. None of my kids have had to do compulsory military service to keep the neighbours in their appointed slums.

I think Israel should be jealous of me, to be honest.

by A Neighbour Thu May 08, 2008 09:50

One expert on child-rearing stated that parents must never underestimate the total and absolute egocentricity of late adolescense - the child does not actually hate or deliberately upset everyone in the vicinity, but is driven by pure selfishness and self-fulfillment. I hope that Israel, rather belatedly, is undergoing such a phase and will begin to notice the real world again soon. Of course 60 is young for a nation so it may be a teenager in human years, as we might describe "doggy years" for pets.

I was born a neighbour to Israel and, unlike those enslaved and born into captivity within greater Israel's borders, I have the freedom to travel, work, own property and write on Indymedia. It is incredible that a supposed democracy and friend of the West can have 400,000 internally displaced refugees - displaced purely by ethnicity and religion - and occupy territories with a further 4 million stateless refugees (1.5 million in the Gaza strip and 2.6 million in the West Bank). As the Reverend Jeremiah Wright might say, that is a hell of a lot of chickens coming home to roost, and Israel is actively breeding them with international support. Violence is the rightful last resort of those deprived of political progress.

(Incidentally, the examiner's article links expire at the end of each day and most content is transferred to a permanent link in the TCM archives, in this case http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2008/05/07/story62...9.asp, but it needs searching by date or keyword to find the non-expiring link)

by Miriam Thu May 08, 2008 20:32

Al-Ahram Weekly On-line
7 - 13 May, 1998
Issue No.376

In the United States, celebrations of Israel's fifty years as a state have tried to project an image of the country that went out of fashion since the Palestinian Intifada (1987-92): a pioneering state, full of hope and promise for the survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, a haven of enlightened liberalism in a sea of Arab fanaticism and reaction. On 15 April, for instance, CBS broadcast a two hour prime-time program from Hollywood hosted by Michael Douglas and Kevin Costner, featuring movie stars such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Kathy Bates (who recited passages from Golda Meir minus, of course, her most celebrated remark that there were no Palestinians) and Winona Ryder. None of these luminaries are particularly known for their Middle Eastern expertise or enthusiasm, although all of them in one way or another praised Israel's greatness and enduring achievements. There was even time for a cameo appearance by President Bill Clinton, who provided perhaps the least edifying, most atavistic note of the evening by complimenting Israel, "a small oasis," for "making a once barren desert bloom," and for " building a thriving democracy in hostile terrain."

Ironically enough, no such encomia were intoned on Israeli television, which has been broadcasting a 22-part series, Tkuma, on the country's history. This series has a decidedly more complicated content. Episodes on the l948 War, for instance, made use of archival sources unearthed by the new historians (Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Avi Schlaim, Tom Segev, et al) to demonstrate that the indigenous Palestinians were forcibly expelled, their villages destroyed, their land taken, their society eradicated. It was as if Israeli audiences had no need of all the palliatives provided for diasporic and international viewers, who still needed to be told that Israel was a cause for uncomplicated rejoicing and not, as it has been for Palestinians, the cause of a protracted, and still continuing dispossession of the country's indigenous people.

/Full article below

Link: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/376/pal1.htm

by Contrarian Thu May 08, 2008 20:54

I suppose it would be pissing against the wind to point out that there are over one million Arab Palestinians who live happily as citizens of Israel. Most (>80%) are muslim, some are Druze and Christian. They enjoy full democratic, political and civil rights. They (both men and women) can drive, vote, worship their deity of choice and wear what they choose - freedoms not always available in the wider Arab world. They have political parties and represent about 10% of Knesset members. They work in the Civil Service, they volunteer to serve in the army (although they are excused from compulsory military service.) They occupy positions at all levels of the Israeli state up to and including the Israeli Supreme Court. They strongly opposed proposals from the Israeli far right to transfer some Arab majority areas from Israel to the Palestinian Authority.

But still Israel is the baddest, meanest, nastiest old state in the whole Middle East, if not the whole world, right?

by Miriam Thu May 08, 2008 21:57

or whatever you prefer to call it - this first hand account of what it is like to be a Palestinian living in Israel paints a very different picture:

http://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/news/My-Palestine.html

by Contrarian Thu May 08, 2008 22:22

Hi Miriam,

Interesting link, thank you. However, I'm sure you will agree that most if not all of the discrimination reported is of the informal variety and not state-sponsored. One small inaccuracy - "In addition, Israeli Palestinians who marry Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territories are not able to legally live with their spouse in Israel." This is true for all Israeli citizens who marry any non-Israeli - the non Israeli spouse is subject to normal immigration criteria and does not get in simply because of marriage. But there is no blanket ban on spouses from the occupied territories. Bit like EU citizens here, really, eh?

A further point that is difficult to swallow is the discrimination in the job market supposedly caused by the lack of conscription for Palestinians! Well, that is easily rectified - all Israeli citizens are entitled to enlist in the Defence Forces - most Palestinians choose not to - they can hardly then complain if they are not eligible for jobs that require prior military service.

All in all, the picture painted is of an imperfect society but a far, far preferable one to most of the middle east. After all, Israel has many mosques, how many synagogues are in Saudi Arabia? How many Arab countries would allow the writer to vote? Or drive? Or wear a mini-skirt?

by Neighbour Thu May 08, 2008 23:52

Yes, Contrarian, you are pissing in the wind and grossly inaccurate to boot. One million Arabs do have Israeli citizenship, of whom 420,000 are internally displaced refugees - hardly "living happily as citizens of Israel" nor "enjoying full democratic, political and civil rights".

There is no comparison between the exclusion from Israel of stateless refugees held in Israeli-occupied territories and the normal immigration procedures of Western democracies. Non-EU spouses (my own included) have little difficulty in entering the EU upon marriage with an EU resident or citizen. So no, Israeli discrimination against Palestinians is not in any way "a bit like EU citizens here, really, eh?"

As for Saudi Arabia, why does our government help prop it up, trade with it, supply it militarily and cow-tow to dark-ages theocracy? Why did our own President voluntarily remove all christian emblems, cover her body, stand behind her own departmental civil servants and abstain from conversing with or shaking hands with Saudi officials?

But of course your moral relativism through reference to Saudi Arabian is just evading the point that Israel is an aggressor against selected peoples within its own and its occupied territories.

by Miriam Fri May 09, 2008 12:51

National day of mourning to commemorate Palestinian Nakba

Ma'an News

Ramallah - Ma'an - A national day of mourning will be held across the Palestinian territories on Thursday to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba.

continues http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m43876&hd=&size=1&l=e

by sean patrick Sat May 10, 2008 18:09

i think we should remember that there was supportf rom the palastinian leadership for the nazis, that jews were forced from their homes, thousands in arab states, islamic and palastinian militants target all israelis for death often with widespread support from amny palastinians, the palastinian leadership rejected the two state solution in 1938 and again in 1947, that if ithad been accepted in the late 30s a great many jewish lives would have been saved in the holocaust and that the extreme left are it would appear to me to be not very passionate at all in the condemnation of the killing of innocent israelis if at all. you need to take a more balanced view. human rights and dignity for all, palestinian and israeli,

by Neighbour Sat May 10, 2008 21:54

Here we go back to the moral relativism - "i think we should remember that there was supportf rom the palastinian leadership for the nazis, that jews were forced from their homes, thousands in arab states, islamic and palastinian militants target all israelis for death": a bit like Ireland's requests for support from Nazi Germany, the offer of a platform for the invasion of Britain, refuge for fleeing Nazis and condolences on the death of Hitler. And more recently the combined training and sponsorship of arab and Irish terrorism and criminality.

What do you think will engender a respect for life amongst a people born and raised as refugees in the occupied territories, other than providing those people with political expression? When they have an equality of choice with their Israeli neighbours is when I will have an equality of compassion and outrage at the senseless killing of Israelis.

by Mr Man Mon May 12, 2008 18:07

Neighbour, didn't really understand what you were getting at visa vis the whole Palestine-Ireland thing. Surely both are bad? Or is that your point?

Anyway, as regards 'What do you think will engender a respect for life amongst a people born and raised as refugees in the occupied territories, other than providing those people with political expression?'. Didn't they elect Hamas? Isn't that political expression?

by Leila Mon May 12, 2008 23:39

I have been living in Cork for 18 months and time and time again have come up against the racism that is ever present amongst 'the most respectable' citizens. Many don't want to face up to it and whilst it is mentioned here and there more and more frequently, the overwhelming general perception is still that racism is not really an issue here. How often have I heard "I'm not racist but..." Whilst on the one hand I can understand that Ireland has had to update itself very rapidly in a short space of time, I still think that there is nowhere near enough done to address prejudice and the reality of it is undermined frequently.
At least this is the only explanation I can find for stories and headlines that the Irish Examiner can afford to print. Flicking through the broadsheet I have encountered several articles in recent memory, that are rather dubious in wording.

1. Irishman died after bingeing on Polish Vodka
2. Three in Four foreigners do not feel discriminated against.

On the other hand the Irish Examiner does not strike me as the most right-wing of papers either, often printing commentary that is quite liberal in thought.

Visit www.peripheral-eye.blogspot.ie for some more info.
Also, a nice blog for pictures and things a little more light hearted in and around Cork.

Peace
Leila

by rural reader Tue May 13, 2008 08:58

Leila makes a point I can quite agree with when she says "the Irish Examiner does not strike me as the most right-wing of papers either, often printing commentary that is quite liberal in thought."

Yes actually the editorial line seems to be slightly different from the Sindo-Indo-Tirish Himes axis of monothought. I'd say the editor is aware that although circulation is modest the Examiner (a) is produced outside Dublin, and (b) it has a readership concentrated in counties Cork and Limerick, with scattered sales in towns and villages around several other counties, not forgetting the loquacious Cork diaspora in Dublin. To some extent the Examiner can represent rural concerns more sensitively than the Indo and the IT. Its stance is relatively different in nuance, in an Ireland where the centralised mass media tend to assume a mono hue. Many citizens are oblivious to the saturation of public discourse by the print and electronic media.

One other little thing I notice about the Examiner is the growing liveliness of its still rather small Letters section. Readers dwelling outside Leinster seem to be able to get letters printed there. Good.

Finally, the pages can sometimes be laid out brightly. Thank heaven for small media mercies.

by Mr Man Tue May 13, 2008 15:10

I agree, I have noticed smatterings of poorly worded headlines, but on the whole, I feel that the broadsheets generally highlight growing racism. As per the whole Sindo-Thymes uniformity, I would put that down to the fact that many papers cant actually put people in all the places that they are reporting on. They but rights for stories off global news 'outlets' and put their own spin on it.

Still, at least the papers have a degree of accountability as opposed to online sources.

by Neighbour Tue May 13, 2008 15:34

I mention Ireland's parallel actions only to note that these morally relativist issues are diversions from the issue of people born stateless, whose only outlet for political expression is violence.

The majority of Palestinians and the internally displaced have no citizenship, no civil rights, no representatives and no elections. The majority of Palestinians did not elect any party. In addition, the PNA elections are not comparable to western democracy - Israel controls the ports, borders, water, energy, food imports, agricultural exports and almost every other aspect of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The people have no democratic control over their own resources, nor passports and the right to travel. The minority entitled to vote had to choose between two visions of violence.

It is difficult to conceive of any more effective environment for breeding terrorism than that which Israel has created for Palestinians. I was born in a country neighbouring Israel which does not call for Israel's destruction, bomb its citizens, supply terrorists to foreign wars, etc, etc, but then it is not under Israeli control. Perhaps you might find the cross-border film "The Visit of the Band" an interesting insight into the uneasy peace that is achievable. Perhaps you might find the polemical rhetoric of the American Christian Reverend Jeremiah Wright (Barack Obama's pastor) equally interesting - I heard his "clapping 2-2 in a 1-3 country" speech this morning, which was superlative.

by Mr Man Tue May 13, 2008 17:23

Neighbour;

Ok, I see what you meant.

But.... "these morally relativist issues are diversions from the issue of people born stateless, whose only outlet for political expression is violence."

That is moral relativism in itself, changing ones morals (ie dont kill others) depending on the situation. As in, 'sure, Palestinians are doing bad things, but not that bad relative to the things done to them'.

by Neighbour Tue May 13, 2008 19:40

I don't say that Palestinian terrorism is "not that bad relative to the things done to them", nor that it is good or acceptable. It is what I would expect of people in the futureless captivity they find themselves, and how I might be acting myself right now if I had been born a couple of hundred kilometres down the road. Violence is a last resort, and most of it is senseless and unproductive destruction of innocent lives. Giving the Palestinian people - including the majority stateless Palestinians - alternatives is the only way to stop terrorism. It seems to have been effective enough here, and Margaret Thatcher's "no platform for terrorists" policy was a good historical lesson in how to encourage greater levels of violence.

by Mr Man Tue May 13, 2008 20:16

Ok, I agree with you on that. But that wasn't what I was trying to point out, you cant dismiss someones argument on the point of being morally relativistic if you are being morally relativistic yourself. If your morals would change depending on your location and situation, then it is relativistic, by definition.