Comments on: Marketing Israel: Is it the campaign, or does the product suck?

By: Eliza

Eliza — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:42:07 +0000

Carl – It is true that Australian govts have invariably supported Israel. The recent decision to abstain in the UN vote rather than vote with the US was described by Aust FM as a ‘significant policy decision’ (or words to that effect). But Australia’s mainly supportive stance of Israel is a reflection of its relationship with the USA. There is no advantage to Australia from Israel itself but Australia will not lightly go against USA. However, popular support for the Palestinian people is growing in Australia. We too have had our ‘empty land’ days and the dispossession of land and resources of our indigenous people. Zionism and talk of religious/ethnic ‘purity’ will not go down well in multi-cultural Australia. I would expect support for Israel to continue to decline within Australia. BTW, if the current Australian Govt loses the 2013 election, which appears likely, Australia will probably appear more supportive of Israel, but that’s only a conservative Govt stance and not indicatative of popular support for Israel.

By: The Trespasser

The Trespasser — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:20:30 +0000

From wikipedia:

Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change … In particular, it attacks the use of sharp binary classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial…

You are a post-modernist, Carl. Rather uneducated one though.

By: Scootalol

Scootalol — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 22:24:32 +0000

Of course there’s been “tension” between the different groups in the region. There’s always been “tension” everywhere that different groups of humanity meet – and a homogenous group will FIND differences to argue over.

You claim “The Ottomans kept a lid on it”? Well, no, there was nothing to “keep a lid on.” It’s not as though the middle east were some chaotic place of perpetual warfare before Osman finished off the Byzantines and took over the Caliphate. Such periods of chaos and open strife in the region are the EXCEPTION, not the rule as you seem to wish.

The violence and conflict we identify the Middle East with in the 20th century and beyond is INTRODUCED. Of course there were always “tensions,” but the artificial creation of countries by European powers and constant interference in the region has created the situation we see today.

Spare the myth of “oh, they’ve been fighting forever,” that’s just a diversion, an excuse for apathy and a method by which the person using it passes away their own ignorance.

By: Fernandes

Fernandes — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:56:51 +0000

In all of the places that you mention, the sectarian clashes are of very recent origin – they aren’t just the latest manifestation of some very old rivalries. Plus, much of those recent tensions are fomented by new ideologies promoted by outside parties; most notably Saudi Arabia but also, to some extent, the US. In Iraq, for example, the sectarian clashes started when Iraqi Al-Qaeda, a group whose membership is largely non-Iraqi, bombed some important Shia shrines after the 2003 US invasion. In Lebanon, resentment (by Sunnis, Christians and Druzes alike) has much to do with the fact that Hezbollah is the only group in Lebanon that gets to store weapons legally, and this gives the Shias a leverage regarding, for example, land disputes between sects, of which there are many thanks to the latest civil war. The violent, ultra-religious Salafi groups that will time and again try to provoke the Shias to a fight are propped up by Saudi Arabia, as some of its princes have proudly admitted, and do not represent the general Sunni population of Lebanon, which is, if anything, the most secularized sect in the country. And in Syria, the role of foreign fighters and Gulf monarchies in inciting sectarianism could hardly be clearer.

When people cite the “tensions” between groups in Palestine before Israel’s establishment, they’ll cite, for example, the 1929 Hebron riots. But this particular event, and others similar to it, shouldn’t be lazily attributed to some perennial “tensions in the background”; they’re the product of identifiable historical developments; in that case, the Zionist attempt to plunge the native population of Palestine into poverty by taking over their lands, laying off non-Jewish workers whose families had been working on those lands for centuries; and denying them employment yet again when they migrated to the cities.

By: Fernandes

Fernandes — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:37:50 +0000

It depends where you ask. In most of Europe, people’s feelings at hearing the word ‘Palestinian’ will be more positive than at hearing ‘Israel’. The US is the only world nation where the truth the inverse.

By: XYZ

XYZ — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 11:20:45 +0000

Every time I try to fit an easy-to-use label for the views you and others promote here, someone objects. I really don’t know how to classify views such as yours, note I also said “left-liberal-progressive”. Left seems to popular in Israel (althouh many “Right-wing” voters have Leftist views on social and economic issues), in the US, they seem to prefer “progressive”. From what I have studied about post-Modernism, all seem to accept the premises of that philosophical school…if you don’t, I apologize.

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 02:17:23 +0000

There is, XYZ, something to what you say about selectively targeted human rights. Liberal/Progressives tend to care most about arenas they are tied to by citizenship. I cared much about Iraq until the withdrawal but now find myself not reading news reports much thereon. I do not keep up with Syria because my “world” can do nothing. While you are right that China and Russia played a role in marginalizing the West and US through promised Security Council vetos, that is partly the point: Obama, when announcing the Libya action, called the Security Council vote an “international writ,” meaning international law had been activated.

The problem for Israel is that it accepts enormous political and economic aid from the US. This ties in the liberal effectiveness I just mentioned. On top of this, there are self defined aggressive and quite effective pro-Israel lobbies in the US, which again activates the zone of liberal effectiveness. When Bibi cuddles Romney, he himself is activating that liberal zone.

Rwanda was ignored until too late, and Cambodia, save for the occupying Vietnamese, was ignored nearly completely. There are amazing hearts that do not act this way–often associated with faiths or medicine (Doctors without Borders). Yet even with all this mental blinders, the effectiveness lever vis a vis Israel is real: the UN, EU, and US have gone far to propping up the PA, and the UN has probably kept Gaza somewhat about mass starvation. With all these inputs, often accepted by Israel, Israel is fair game on issues of rights given the way minds tend to work. And I emphasize that the Israeli right works hard to ally individuals in the West to its policies. This in itself generates a reponse.

By: Aaron Gross

Aaron Gross — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 21:22:51 +0000

I don’t think we’re disagreeing. I’m saying that Israel’s image would not improve (except briefly) if it completely ended the 1967 occupation. Israel has a bad image largely because the “Western” Israeli Jews rule over a non-Western population against their will, inside and outside of the 1967 lines. Australia, America, etc. are different; we both seem to agree that the difference is not Israel’s 1967 occupation, but population sizes and other factors.

By: XYZ

XYZ — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:38:06 +0000

I find your outburst here to be quite enlightening. I am always attempting to fathom the mind of the “Liberal-Left-Progressives” who have “human rights on their lips” but never seem to actually care about them except to use them as a hammer to bash Israel. I never, I repeat NEVER see them advocating action to save the people of Syria who are being slaughtered by demanding boycotts of China and Russia who are propping up Assad’s regime. NEVER. So we see “human rights” are not their prime motivation. Bashing Israel and Jews is a “stand-alone” advocation.
Next, it is interesting how you seem to assume that support for Israel in the US is limited to Adelson . Then you throw in “tax cuts for the rich”. I didn’t mention anything about that, but you assume that since I support Israel, I must be a Tea-Party Republican. What is the connection? You seem to think that people don’t think for themselves, everyone except you (of course) is some sort of cut-out.
There are many, many non-Jews in the US AND IN EUROPE, for that matter, who support Israel. I realize that is difficult for you to understand, but since apparently you only move around in closed circles among people like yourself, assuming like all good “progressives” that everyone who opposes you is a moron or corrupt, you have a very distorted view of what humanity is really like and what real people think.

By: Oriol2

Oriol2 — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:29:54 +0000

Of course you are right. But there is a difference between the two situations: Aborigines sum up a 2,3% of Australian population. Obviously they don’t “behave” like Palestinians, because trying to expel the European population from Australia it’s not only impossible: it just doesn’t make any sense. Now Australia is an Anglo-Saxon country with minorities, we like it or not. As for the Palestinians, they should be right now about the 40% in territories under Israeli rule, and there is also a huge diaspora. They are not just a “minority”, in the sense in which Native Americans have become a minority in USA or Canada, but a population competing for power over the land. At least in this sense, I think Israeli leftist are right: either you give a state to the Palestinians on Gaza and the West Bank -in which case Palestinian Israelis would find themselves in a situation perhaps closer to that of African Americans in USA-, or you struggle to create a single political entity which encompasses both Jews and Arabs. This last option seems extremely difficult, but perhaps it’s not unfeasible. Of course the current apartheid state -if you don’t want to use that name, please invent another one- could survive for a long time, at a very high price, not just for the Palestinians, but also for the Israelis. (By the way, I know Palestinians hate Israelis, will never allow them to live in peace, blah blah blah. You go to any area in a situation of war and national/racial oppression and you will find similar feelings on the losing side -and also on the winning side-, but usually they fade away some decades after a reasonable arrangement for peace.)