Nice try but I never said that there wasn’t any support for Darfur, merely that given its far more serious situation its gets far less attention than it deserves compared to the I/P conflict. Its no secret that the I/P issue has been beaten to death for the past 60+ years, Darfur, as well numerous other similar problems around the globe, seem more like the flavor of the month. Does darfur, saddam’s gassing of the Kurds, the taliban’s sacking of Mazar-e-Sharif evoke the same level or even any outrage among the left compared to the I/P issue? As far as I know the IDF does not go around raping Palestinian women, slaughtering whole villages, and behaving the way Genghis Khan did in the 1300s.

Besides my comment you quoted was directed to the left in general not Hari specifically. My issues with his article are ones of balance in the diescription of both sides.

Hari has been to Darfur to report on what is happening there. And to Congo, and the Central African Republic, and Iraq… I could go on. You can’t try that tactic; he criticises both. You should acknowledge here that was a bogus point.

Pumping sh*t as you put it without control affects people’s lives by spreading disease, limiting safe water supply, destroying fertile land and so forth. It isn’t a straight forward issue.

Should the world ignore the issue of Israelis and Palestinian because Darfur is worse? Is resolution of suffering based upon a league table.

The world needs to be able to address issues including all of the ones you mentioned.

Has the Muslim World been found wanting on the issue of Darfur – hell yes but does that mean other issues should lose focus – hell no. The issues of Darfur and I/P are important issues and people need to courage to address them for the betterment of us all.”

Thread is getting a bit intense for me : )…

Any case I will leave it that I have no problem criticising Israel. My gripe is only that too many of those who attack Israel view this conflict in the stereotypical Israel is the big bad wolf oppressing poor little Palestininas mold.

All of those issues are being addressed but saying that pumping sh*t isn’t the same as Darfur really ignores the reality of daily life for civilians in I/P and it is a situation that hasn’t been addressed for 50 years.

Pumping sh*t as you put it without control affects people’s lives by spreading disease, limiting safe water supply, destroying fertile land and so forth. It isn’t a straight forward issue.

Should the world ignore the issue of Israelis and Palestinian because Darfur is worse? Is resolution of suffering based upon a league table.

The world needs to be able to address issues including all of the ones you mentioned.

Has the Muslim World been found wanting on the issue of Darfur – hell yes but does that mean other issues should lose focus – hell no. The issues of Darfur and I/P are important issues and people need to courage to address them for the betterment of us all.

But we’re not even close to such a case are we? Are you claiming Hari’s column was an example of “trying to be sensitive”? No, it wasn’t. Not even close. At best, he was trying to be provocative.

What happened in terms of the holocaust shouldn’t be used to halt legitimate criticism of the actions of Israel not should it be used as a barrier to build community relations.

If Hariri or anyone writes a legitimate article criticising Israel or the Palestinians should either community hide behind smears?

No.”

/ agree

I have nothing against criticizing Israel. In fact our media (in the US) needs a lot more of it. But all I see among left wingers is constant diatribe against Israel while giving far more serious crimes little or no attention. What is pumping shit improperly compared to the genocide (a real one) in darfur? How many people protested/complained when the Taliban took Mazar-e-Sharif in 98 and went on a six day killing frenzy? Lets get our priorites straight.

What happened in terms of the holocaust shouldn’t be used to halt legitimate criticism of the actions of Israel not should it be used as a barrier to build community relations.

If Hariri or anyone writes a legitimate article criticising Israel or the Palestinians should either community hide behind smears?

No.

Further such discussions are taking place within Israel so why is there a need to allow Melanie to smear those who have those discussions here?

Equally what then gives Melanie Phillips and Alan Dershowitz the right to criticise the actions of the Palestinians?

Religion – any religion has to be a force for good for all and to contribute towards a just society. That is the ideals upon which religion is founded and upon which Judaism and Islam are founded. Yet the people aren’t living up to or indeed following those ideals.

Indeed whilst you point to the events of the 20th Century a fair number of the survivors of the holocaust campaign for rights of the Palestinians for the very ideal that they don’t want another people – their neighbours to suffer indignity and they want them to have full rights.

No community should be above having its actions checked and balanced by the wider community if those actions need criticising.

So what, we should examine this issue in a vaccum? Our sensitivity to anti-semitism comes to us because of what happened in the 20th century, lest we forget.

Many excelent articles have been written about this but only recently is this being taken seriously.

Thus some unsavoury tactics are being used to stop criticism of Israel.

As I said earlier this is actually going against what is starting to happen in Israel where some critical and acclaimed pieces are being written regarding how the Palestinians have been treated.

However for everyone arguing and it is only a few here that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic I would remind everyone that in Israel and amongst American Jewry there is also an opinion – gaining some ground – that peace won’t be achieved and Israel needs to manage the war thus keeping this mad situation going and building more settlements etc.

If Israel isn’t held to checks and balances by World Jewry then Israel is in the long term finished and any chance of becoming a participant in the region and world will disappear.

Why do I say this well any nation allowed to go down this road cannot possibly survive such excesses as the time will come when the world won’t turn a blind eye due to overwhelming pressure but at that point changing the mentality of people is much more difficult.

Thus World Jewry and people of the world have a role to play in checking the behaviour of nations and peoples. This concept applies as well to the Palestinians as they begin down the road of peace.

Thus smearing critics of Israel with accusations of anti-semitism harms World Jewry and Israel. It makes Judaism appear as an uncaring and bigoted religion which cares only about its own. With such a small population of Jews worldwide anyhow even amongst Jews this will cause followers to re-evaluate the human rights and dignity to their fellow man amongst Jews thus harming the future perception of Judaism. Judaism like other major faiths is also about the care and dignity of fellow humans – this is why Moses preached to the pharoah.

How is this situation to be addressed? World Jewry needs to reach out to other faiths especially Muslims and build bridges, Muslims need to do likewise.

Israelis and Palestinians need to build bridges and projects that bring about peace, harmony and co-existance. Improving the Palestinian economy brings benfits to Israel and Palestine. Joint business parks and ventures is a good way to begin. Israel needs to allow the Palestinian Economy to grow thus keeping people away from extremism.

Both sides need to begin programmes to share experiences and towrads mutual understanding.

Cultural exchanges need to begin and common values emphasised.

Humanity needs to return to both sets of people.

In this way we avoid going down the ever dangerous road both are heading down.

To do this requires recognition of rights and for the diaspora of both communities to provide checks and balances to ensure that bounds are not exceeded.

In order to do all this requires both sides to stop shrieking excessively when they are rightfully criticised.

In the case of Israel – Hariri was referring to the wild shrieks of anti-semitism which are put out whenever anyone exposes a wrong by Israel. Melanie shrieked at his article that because of him two Jews were assulted in the UK – the point she made was never proven but the accusation stuck. In order to work towards piece inthe region what Hariri and many Jewish voices are saying is this wild shrieking approach needs to stop and wrongs need to be highlighted.

This benefits Israel because it can work towards stopping this and it benefits World Jewry because it stops anti-semitism by halting linkage with events in the region.

It is simple enough and it isn’t something that Jews are afraid of but a small minority who are not interested in promoting reconciliation are driving people away from criticism.

bananabrain: “if you find me something about saudi arabia about which i can approve then i will approve of it. as yet nobody has provided anything. lovely weather, perhaps.”

Ummm… I’m not sure if you’re being facetious or not.

ignoblus: a few more points:
I’ve no problem with imposing that standard.

Who imposes that standard?

Most of the things that are impossible to write while trying to be sensitive to minorities probably ought not to be written.

What if a minority themselves is writing something of their own experience, or trying to expose something nasty from within their own community? And other minorities find that offensive? Still shouldn’t be written?

So we can’t write about Muslim terrorists?

And also, if why can’t we write about Israel over the Palestinians? By that I mean, by taking the side of one over the other, you inevitably annoy a minority. How do you choose which minority you are willing to annoy and which one you don’t want to annoy through self-censorship?

Anti-racism isn’t pretending that minorities are above reproach. That always backfires, anyway.

Exactly my point.

Look I don’t disagree that we should write things sensitively to ensure that people aren’t annoyed. But there are certain things that will annoy people – that’s inevitable.

For example, Israelis say they are the victims of attacks by Hamas and other terrorist organisations, while Palestinians claim they are the victims of being being denied self-determination and having their movements severely restricted. Which is the victim and which is the aggressor? How would you write something that would not annoy either side?

(Are Muslims paedophiles more often than others? What’s the reason some people want such an article written? If there’s a legitimate reason, there’s a way to write it. Anti-racism isn’t pretending that minorities are above reproach. That always backfires, anyway.)

More than that, though, we shouldn’t try to marginalize anti-racist criticism. The effect is to marginalize the groups that would criticize.

But those who find it offensive find that by constantly hurling the accusation of racist, they can ensure it goes into self-censorship or shut down debate. I wouldn’t suggest that there’s such an either/or. In fact, most of the people who claim to be silenced or stifled are anything but. I find the turning of a discussion of antisemitism into an interrogation of Jews to be offensive. There are other ways to have a discussion, even with someone who is upset and frustrated over racism.

You write that you don’t disagree with something I wrote above, about being careful to not overstep one’s authority. I think that taking that seriously, discussion has an entirely different feel. On the other hand, while you say you don’t disagree, this post takes an incompatible tack.

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni a Palestinian and Arab nationalist and a Muslim leader in the British Mandate of Palestine. Al-Husayni was also the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem over the period from 1921 to 1948.

Digitalcntrl takes back the last sentence in his previous post. I think anti-semitism is being used a little too freely these days. It should only mean hate/prejudice against Jews not criticism of Israel. However, in many parts of the muslim world the two are the same thing.

That being said. Although Hari’s article should not be considered anti-semitic it is certainly unbalanced. He accuses the Jewish leadership of planning and executing a ethnic cleansing (forced eviction) of the Palestinians while ignoring the Palestinan leaderships’ willingness to do alot worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtNAcCXYK6M

But damned if I’m going to tell any black person that their offense is wrong or, worse, manufactured. I suppose I might have some pointed questions, but I’ll avoid any blanket dismissals. If someone tells me something feels like racism to them

I’m not disagreeing with you here but that wasn’t my question. Take another example – East is East. I have Pakistani friends who loved it and some who hated it. Who is to say what is the right portrayal of Pakistanis? I don’t. I disagree with my mate who hated but thats just me. There are other examples where people see Goodness Gracious Me as awful, and lots who liked it.

There are a few points to be made on this and I’d like to ask whether you agree or disagree:

1) Some people may find a piece of writing or portryal offensive, as is the case with East is East, Bruce Almighty, GGM and writing about Israel. They may see it as racist. Fine.

Do you then argue that because some find it racist, it should not be written?

2) Assuming you’re not arguing there should be censorship because some find it offensive. But those who find it offensive find that by constantly hurling the accusation of racist, they can ensure it goes into self-censorship or shut down debate.

Case in example – the portrayal of Muslims in the arts, or the case of Muslim paedophiles (which the media didn’t want to cover because of accusation of racism).

Do you then argue against those throwing those accusations of racism and argue for the piece of writing/ play/article be allowed to go ahead, or do you agree it should be shut down?

You also didn’t answer this question earlier:
“And if any criticism of Israel should be seen as possibly anti-semitic because it falls into previous narratives, then does that mean there should be no criticism at all?”

Unsurprisingly, the nutjobs who shriek anytime anything negative is written about Israel started screaming that Hari must be anti-semitic because he said Israel smelled like shit.

No, he didn’t: he said shit smelled like shit, with the implication that only in the privacy of our bathrooms or wherever we might change nappies do those of us in more civilized places get to smell shit, leading to the conclusion that raw sewage and indifference to its consequences outweigh women’s and gay rights.
I don’t think this is the red rag to the bulls. That I think is the citation of Plan Dalit and charge that Israel ‘ethnically cleansed’ nearly a million people.

Under the UN Partition Plan the Jews got 55% but not particularly the best bits. For what was arable and such like see Wikipedia. MidEast Web is a site the position of which is essentially ‘a plague on both your houses’ and which attempts at great and painstaking length to establish the facts: ‘Each side believes different versions of the same history. Each side views the conflict as wholly the fault of the other and expects an apology.’
Population of Ottoman and Mandate Palestine
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

You said:

Maybe there are a few people out there who are truly disingenuous, but if you think that’s common, that probably says more about you than about them.

I don’t think that that is necessarily true. I’d imagine that the vast majority of people on this planet don’t really care that much about the I/P issue. Strange as it may seem, no-one is obliged to “take sides” in this mess. It would, however, be good if those that have taken a side were able to discuss issues with their opposite numbers without it, almost inevitably it seems to me, degenerating into a slagging match.

On the issue of the potentially dangerous practice of just dumping shit on other folks land, with the possibility that it could poison their drinking water, would it not be more to the point to deal with the issue rather than run to the ‘blood libel’ handbook?

I think both sides have given too much scope to propogandists, and I see no easy way out of it. Sure, there are bad things, ridiculous things even, said by both sides about the other. But when the only response is to react in kind, I despair, I really do….