Comparing Israel/Palestine with Sri Lanka


by Sunny
4th February, 2009 at 12:00 pm    

Suddenly, certain people are interested in the Sri Lankan conflict. That’s not because they’re generally interested in highlighting human rights abuses by the SL government or the LTTE’s brutality, but because it offers a cheap shot as a comparison with the outrage the Gaza invasion to the relative silence over SL. Apparently it illustrates how evil the “anti-imperialist left” is.

This is the point made by David T on Harry’s Place, who usually hates making comparisons because it implies “moral equivalence” but has made an exception here for the required cheap shot.

So why might the outrage in Britain over Gaza be higher profile than the conflict in Sri Lanka?
How about this?

1) Israel is a closer ally of Britain than Sri Lanka is? Israel also receives far more military aid from the USA (our biggest ally) and money from British taxpayers that directly funds militant groups there.

2) That while Sri Lanka/LTTE conflict is a localised problem that only involved India when it decided to stick its oar in, the Israel / Palestine conflict involves far more countries and make the entire Middle East unstable. It also affects oil prices – another big news angle.

3) Given there are several countries involved in the I/P conflict, of which Israel has nuclear weapons and its enemies are trying to develop them, the issue could rapidly spiral out of control into something much bigger. Sri Lanka in contrast isn’t that militarily sophisticated and the LTTE have little hi-tech weaponry to make it a wider conflict. Neither is the LTTE funded by other countries.

4) That there are more Palestinians who are in a more dire situation than Tamils. Sri Lanka hasn’t blockaded its Tamil population and put them in a massive open-air prison, and the Tamils weren’t (until recently) dependent on aid and starving from a breakdown of infrastructure.

5) There are plenty more supporters of the Israeli or Palestinian positions in the mainstream media who keep the issue alive in the national conversation (as is the case in the United States) than on Sri Lanka. How many mainstream political commentators do you know who are Tamil or Singhalese? Britain is also involved by virtue of the fact that we do have Muslim fanatics in the UK who use Gaza as an excuse for their terrorism.

6) It’s also amusing that David T is singling out media (Pickled Politics and the Guardian) as guilty of not paying enough attention to the SL conflict. But prior to the recent Gaza attack we had more posts on SL than we did on Gaza.

Furthermore, you can hardly accuse others of not paying enough attention to Sri Lanka, when Harry’s Place bloggers themselves are obsessed with the minutae of Muslim fundamentalism and Muslim groups worldwide. And this is despite the fact that the LTTE has killed far more people over recent decades and pioneered suicide terrorist missions and child soldiers. David T has the audacity to accuse others of paying too much attention to Muslims… while doing it himself.

And it isn’t just the Harry’s Place – if you read major parts of of the media then Muslim fundamentalists threaten the very foundation of western civilisation and are apparently they’re gaining on us as Britain Descends Into Dhimmification. These lot are obsessed by what Muslims do. That makes the Israel/Palestine conflict, linked with Muslim groups here or internationally, a much higher profile issue. Even if PP or the Guardian ignored it entirely, most of the media wouldn’t because they’d be telling us how Israelis were facing IslamofascistsTM.

7) Lastly, and this is the most important point, there is no moral clarity in the Sri Lankan conflict. The LTTE is as brutal in its aims as the SL government is. Similarly, there is no moral clarity over Israel/Palestine either – as I said here.

But those who make these fatuous and self-serving comparisons do so not because they care for Sri Lankans, but because they want to insinuate that focusing on Israel/Palestine is spurred by anti-semitism rather than reasons mentioned above.

They are also the ones who support Israel unequivocally. Take one example: during the recent conflict Israel “rained fire” with White Phosphorus over Gaza. The usage of white phosphorus in crowded civilian areas such as Gaza is not legally allowed under Geneva Conventions because it burns people’s skins.

Was there any major outcry over this blatant flouting of international law and usage of chemical weapons among Israel’s “friendly critics”. Well, I did a search on Harry’s Place and this is what I found.

Hmmm, that’s a bit odd. I thought the writers on Harry’s Place were really concerned about human rights.

Even the Times newspaper covered the White Phosphorus attacks, as did its cartoonist, hardly a paper criticised for being pro-Palestinian.

You know what they say, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Comparing the Sri Lankan conflict with Israel/Palestine isn’t just fatuous, it’s actually dishonest to do so in such a way.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Media,Middle East,Sri Lanka






100 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. links for 2009-02-04 « Embololalia

    [...] Pickled Politics >> Comparing Israel/Palestine with Sri Lanka (tags: conflict southasia israel palestine middleeast uk internationalrelations) [...]


  2. Shuhel @ InsideDesi

    Currently Browsing: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2913




  1. David T — on 4th February, 2009 at 12:07 pm  

    There is also the very important fact that Israel is a country which begins with the letter I and ends with the letter L.

    That is totally different from Sri Lanka, which begins with the letter S and ends with the letter A.

    This vital difference explains why Jews have been beaten in the street, shop windows of stores rumoured to be “pro-Israel” smashed, and racist conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the world have been bandied around in connection with Gaza; while nothing of the sort has happened in relation to Sri Lanka at all.

  2. Golam Murtaza — on 4th February, 2009 at 12:17 pm  

    Complete non-answer there from David.

  3. Ben White — on 4th February, 2009 at 12:35 pm  

    Golam – what did you expect?

  4. Venichka — on 4th February, 2009 at 12:37 pm  

    Well (as an exile of sorts from Harry’s place) I must say that I find Sunny’s argument far more convincing and reasonable and well-grounded than David T’s. Regrettably I say that as DT is a very decent chap.

    But coverage of anything to do with the Middle East chez HP is prone to sheer conspiratorial lunacy, extremism, navel-gazing self-obsession, blowing up of trivia and unsubstantiated rumours for malevolent and aggressive and obnoxious ends. Concerned only with “taking sides” and damn any concern for objectivity, truth or morality.

    Sorry, I had to say it: it is making that site increasingly unreadable.

  5. Gargoyle — on 4th February, 2009 at 12:39 pm  

    So, just to confirm; we now have a ranking system for human righst violations along the lines of the old “Not the Nine O’Clock News” plane crash skit?

    (…”killed 5 Americans, 3 French, 2 Italians and several Africans…but luckily” -smile to camera- “no British were on baord”)

    I really do not see what the geo-political relevance of a country has to do with people caring; if I understood Dave T’s post correctly it was not the “newsworthyness” of the two conflicts that he was contrasting, but the engagement of politicians, universities and everyday people in the criminalisation of Isreal over and above any of the countless other culprits out there.

    And yes, they are guilty of criminal acts, as are Hamas, most western Governments and a plethora of other states; but the pertinent question that I understood from his article is why the world has such a hard-on for demonizing Israel over and above any other party in the world today – is there really no better or damaging example of consistent human right’s abuse?

  6. platinum786 — on 4th February, 2009 at 12:42 pm  

    Good answer David T, if you ever need endorsement to get into MTV’s ‘Yo Mamma’ I’ll back you up. I expect you’ll be following up the next round with some Yo mamma jokes about Sunny or maybe something insulting you may have found in his bins.

    (If your middle aged, boring and have never seen MTV’s Yo Momma, the above parapgrah will mean nothing to you so feel free to ignore it).

    Boo hoo, typical rubbish, terrorists threw a brick through a starbucks window… etc.

    War is not a joke to all of us, Sri Lanka has suffered at the hands of the tamil tigers, as have so many Tamil people. It is important that at this cruicial stage of the conflict, the world helps Sri Lanka, finish the Tamil tigers, whilst ensuring they do not breed another generation of them post conflict.

    As important as victory on the battlefield is, the Tamil people are still Sri Lankan people and deserve to be treated like any other Sri Lankan citizen. Sri Lanka must ensure they have aid, medical help, security in the short term, and rebuilding in the medium term, followed by resolution of long standing political differences to help secure the future in the long term.

  7. MattG — on 4th February, 2009 at 12:51 pm  

    What a bizarre and desperate post.

    Obviously Harrys Place touched a nerve. Funnily enough Tim Marshall also made a similar point on his own blog. He is a pretty good journalist Tim. An increasing number of people I talk to see the hypocrisy too.

    A childrens ward of a hospital was hit in Sri Lanka the other day and the airwaves did not resonate with shouts of ‘war crimes’, ‘genocide’, ‘new holocaust’ etc etc. In fact, they didn’t really mention it.

    Nah…the beeb were talking about snow all day.

    Now I know why though…bombing paediatric wards in Sri Lanka doesn’t affect oil prices.

    ho hum.

  8. Maw — on 4th February, 2009 at 12:53 pm  

    Hey Platinum.
    Looks like you place all the blame for the conflict in Sri Lanka on the Tigers. So no word on the government that bombs its own people too? Do you unreservedly blame Hamas for the conflict with Israel? I hope so, otherwise you’d be inconsistent now wouldn’t you…

  9. MattG — on 4th February, 2009 at 12:58 pm  

    Oh…and by the way…white phosphorus was used by the IDF exactly as it is used by every other army in the world. Most people without a political axe to grind are aware of this.

    The pinpointing of this particular charge on Israel even had groups not known for their affection for the jewish state a bit sheepish.

    Furthermore, not a few Brits i spoke to found it odd that our media should get very excited about Israel dropping smoke screens to screen/protect advancing troops when our very own Prince was calling in cluster bomb airstrikes on Afghan villages only last year.

    ho hum.

  10. David T — on 4th February, 2009 at 12:58 pm  

    Oh and I don’t know the rights and wrongs of the white phosphorous use, but this is what the International Committee of the Red Cross has to say:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_re_eu/eu_red_cross_white_phosphorus_2

    GENEVA – The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally.

    The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using white phosphorus, hich ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries.

    The International Committee of the Red Cross urged Israel to exercise “extreme caution” in using the incendiary agent, which is used to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screen for day attacks, said Peter Herby, the head of the organization’s mines-arms unit.

    “In some of the strikes in Gaza it’s pretty clear that phosphorus was used,” Herby told The Associated Press. “But it’s not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it’s being used in any other way.”

    In response, the Israeli military said Tuesday that it “wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics.”

    Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk

    However, Herby said evidence is still limited because of the difficulties of gaining access to Gaza, where Palestinian health officials say more than 900 people have been killed and 4,250 wounded since Israel launched its offensive late last month. Israel says the operation aims to halt years of Palestinian rocket attacks over the border.

  11. soru — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:02 pm  

    They are also the ones who support Israel unequivocally. Take one example: during the recent conflict Israel “rained fire” with White Phosphorus over Gaza. The usage of white phosphorus in crowded civilian areas such as Gaza is not legally allowed under Geneva Conventions because it burns people’s skins.

    What is the source of your assumption that, unlike every other modern professional military, the Sri Lankan army does not use incendiary and smoke munitions?

    wiki lists these (mostly Chinese) weapons as in current use:

    * RM-70 Multiple rocket launcher
    * BM-21 Multiple rocket launcher

    Artillery

    * 152 mm Type 66 gun-howitzers
    * 130 mm Type 59 field guns
    * 122 mm Type 60 howitzers
    * 85 mm field guns

    http://www.sinodefence.com/army/artillery/type59towed_130mm.asp

    says that the type 59 has:

    # High-Explosive Incendiary (27.5km range)
    # Smoke round (25km range)

    You can’t use the fact that one conflict is covered more, and so you know more about it, to justify the fact it is covered more: that’s just a circular argument.

    The same applies to your point ‘Israel is a closer ally of Britain than Sri Lanka is’. There are people who research every gadget produced in the UK that the Israeli army uses: noone is researching the equivalent list for Sri Lankan army. Maybe it would be less, maybe it would be more: you just don’t know, because the coverage is not there.

  12. Leon — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:06 pm  

    What a bizarre and desperate post.

    What a strange and skewed thing to say. Setting the record straight seems like a good idea to me, if only so you have something to refer to when the HP idiots start bleating with their whatabouttery…

  13. platinum786 — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:27 pm  

    Soru, at no point did anyone state that the sri Lankan army do not use incendary weapons, they may well do, but they have not been found to be using them on civillian populations.

    Furthermore, I don’t think it’d make a lot of sense for them to use them. The region they fight in is a jungle, why do you need a smoke screen in a jungle? Nature provides the required camoflague.

    Also the weapons you list are pretty normal for many armies around the world, rocket launchers and artillery guns. Any of those howitzers can be used to fire a shell which is a smoke round or even a DU round.

    Also Maw, you may have got that impression from my posts, but that is not what I have said. Sometimes if you try to read too much between the lines that happens. I have quite clearly stated that the Sri Lankan army need to take care to avoid civillian casulties, to ensure people in the war zone have security, medical aid, food, that rebuilding is begun and that the long term political differences which were abused by the tamil tiger terrorists are put to rest.

  14. passer bye — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:28 pm  

    Great post Sunny. David T/Harrys Place are not anti-coverage of Israel at all- they after all spend an inordinate amount of time talking about how great Israel is. Why exactly? They are perfectly happy with the ludicrously imbalanced pro-Israel coverage in the majority of the media. They are also highly comfortable with the anti-Muslim stories the media runs every day (Indeed David T himself feeds some of these stories to the media).

    They are against any criticism of Israels slaughetrs in the media.

    They only incriminate themselves by this. If as they claim those who criticise Israel are motivated by anti-semitism then clearly David T’s criticism of Muslim groups must be motivated by anti-Muslim hatred.

    MattG

    A childrens ward of a hospital was hit in Sri Lanka the other day and the airwaves did not resonate with shouts of ‘war crimes’, ‘genocide’, ‘new holocaust’ etc etc. In fact, they didn’t really mention it.”

    Actually many tamils have referred to what the SL army is doing as genocide.

  15. Tony — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:31 pm  

    Isnt it strange and hypocritical to insist on a holocaust memorial day (not a generalise Genocide day) which special commemorates and enshrines your group’s suffering above all others, and to criticise those who try and make it about all genocides then complain that atrocities committed by the Jewish state are focussed on more than those committed by others?

  16. David T — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:32 pm  

    Any attacks on Buddhists on the streets of Britain by Hindus?

  17. Alec — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:35 pm  

    No, Sunny, for once it *is* all about you. Not the actual conflicts, but *your* obsession with defining them in terms of ‘celebrities’ and narsistic need to be absolutely right.

  18. Ahmed — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:36 pm  

    David T

    “This vital difference explains why Jews have been beaten in the street, shop windows of stores rumoured to be “pro-Israel” smashed, and racist conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the world have been bandied around in connection with Gaza; while nothing of the sort has happened in relation to Sri Lanka at all”

    Truly terrible. Welcome to life as a Muslim in the UK Dave, an atmosphere you help create but giving anti-Muslim tabloids negative stories about us. Your site linked to Melanie Phillips who weekly produces vomit about the “Islamisation” of Britian and “Eurabia (the modern protocols)” . Now you know how it feels.

  19. Ahmed — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:40 pm  

    David T

    “Any attacks on Buddhists on the streets of Britain by Hindus?”

    LOL Davids inate anti-Muslim feeling is exposed.
    What does the identity of the perpetrator have to do with anything? Imagine if after 9/11 or 7/7 Muslims had focussed on attacks on them committed by Jews. What would David T say about that?

    Attacks on Jews have come from far right groups but he is only interested in those committed by Muslims because his aim is demonising Muslims. That is David to a T.

  20. platinum786 — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:42 pm  

    It’s all bs. Some jews get mugged, they automatically blame it on Muslims. How many people have been convicted of race related violence?

    Someone breaks a window, it’s the Muslims’ at it again. I bet if a jewish owned car got key’d they’d blame it on Muslims.

    How long do you think the “victim” card will work?

  21. shariq — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:48 pm  

    I think there is a danger of having too many anti HP posts, but this one was fantastic.

    In particular the link to search results for Sri Lanka in point 6 completely owned.

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/categories/current-affairs/south-asia/sri-lanka

  22. eddie — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:50 pm  

    The whole of your piece points to the differences between the two issues and yet point 7, supposedly “the most important point”, is a redundancy – if there is no moral clarity in either conflict -i.e. all parties are or may be morally as bad as each other – why is this point included exactly?

  23. Ahmed — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:53 pm  

    David T

    “This vital difference explains why Jews have been beaten in the street, shop windows of stores rumoured to be “pro-Israel” smashed, and racist conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the world have been bandied around in connection with Gaza; while nothing of the sort has happened in relation to Sri Lanka at all”

    Its important to understand that the same David T, who excoriates others for not focussing on Sri Lanka where more are dying than in Palestine, considers the above events he mentions to be worse than the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian women and children and destruction of their land.

  24. David T — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:54 pm  

    “Someone breaks a window, it’s the Muslims’ at it again. I bet if a jewish owned car got key’d they’d blame it on Muslims. ”

    Yeah, fuck off.

    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/11/11/anti-muslim-bigotry/

  25. soru — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

    ‘they have not been found to be using them on civillian populations’

    That is entirely a statement about the _coverage_ of the fighting: it contains no information about what is actually happened. They could be napalming every village, and you would still be able to say that.

    A better question is which level of coverage of the fighting is preferable for the civilians involved. It does seem true that in the last war, Israel used cluster weapons, and in this one they didn’t, presumably because of such pressure.

    On the other hand, I don’t think Gazans are well served by being told the Israelis are blood-thirsty criminals who exceed every rational limit in their desire to kill and maim.

    Peace does seem a better long-term goal than war with fewer weapons…

  26. Gargoyle — on 4th February, 2009 at 1:58 pm  

    “Imagine if after 9/11 or 7/7 Muslims had focussed on attacks on them committed by Jews”

    Actually, my initial feeling after 7/7 was of horror and tragedy; after that, my next instinctual response was to hope that the right wing idiots who thrive off events like that would not go for retribution against all msulims at any cost.

    It didn’t even enter my mind that “the Jews” as a people would seek to attack muslims as a result of that attack; what purpose would it serve when the average (non thinking) person in the street was probably ready to do it themselves?

    Attacks on Jews from right wing groups are not mentioned for the same reasons that attacks on muslims from right wing groups are not mentioned by you; they don’t support your victimology – wow, if only muslims and jews could start a self-help group together you might actually see how indistinguishable you are from each other; maybe it’s that fact that is fuelling your mutual hatred?

    As for the rest of us; according to the various philosphies expounded here, we are living in limbo between a Zionist-controlled elite and an Islamic ground swell anmongst what used to be the refuge of the working class.

    My prognosis is that, caught between these two extremes, people will become more desenfranchised from their identities and culture and a nationalistic, racist movement will have converts queiing up to join their cause.

    Taking sides is redundant as far as I am concerned.

  27. soru — on 4th February, 2009 at 2:06 pm  
  28. Alec — on 4th February, 2009 at 2:16 pm  

    It’s simple. If a Harry’s Place post doesn’t interest me, I don’t read it. If I disagree with one, I do so.

    Isnt it strange and hypocritical to insist on a holocaust memorial day (not a generalise Genocide day) which special commemorates and enshrines your group’s suffering above all others,

    TONY

    This is an easily refutable lie but one which should be tackled every time it rears its ugly head all the same. Go to the H.M.D. site, you vindictive liar. The only way it can possibly be construed as Jewish exceptionalism is if the reader gets a funny trembling sensation at the sight of Jews getting a whole day, out of 364 others, to remember the the time 90% of their families were extinguished; and respond by including other genocides in the events.

    and to criticise those who try and make it about all genocides then complain that atrocities committed by the Jewish state are focussed on more than those committed by others?

    The fact that you feel the need to emphasis that Israel is the “Jewish state” when discussing attacks on individual Jews and Jews individually worldwide suggests that criticism of Israel has become indistinguishable from antisemitism, which I don’t think was your intention. Or was it, considering your efforts to dismiss the memory and significance of the Holocaust which targeted overwhelmingly non and anti Zionist Jews.

  29. Sunny — on 4th February, 2009 at 2:28 pm  

    “Someone breaks a window, it’s the Muslims’ at it again. I bet if a jewish owned car got key’d they’d blame it on Muslims. ”

    Yeah, fuck off.

    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/11/11/anti-muslim-bigotry/

    One post about anti-Muslim bigotry David – that really explains everything there is to say about everything.

    Once you’ve stopped chucking your toys out of the pram, I’d be happy to engage with serious arguments that you have refuting my above made points.

    Any attacks on Buddhists on the streets of Britain by Hindus?

    Jesus, you really are turning into a Melanie Phillips clone. For the past few years we’ve also seen plenty of attacks on Muslims by non-Muslims as well. Hell, I know of Sikhs who’ve had their turbans pulled off because they apparently looked Afghani.

    What’s your fucking point? That ZOMG the Muzzzzzlims are taking over??

  30. Sunny — on 4th February, 2009 at 2:47 pm  

    while nothing of the sort has happened in relation to Sri Lanka at all.

    Actually, this is probably also bullshit. There are constant fights between Sri Lankan and Tamil gangs in west London over the issue, as there has been for years. Just because they don’t make it on to Harry’s Place doesn’t mean they aren’t fighting over it.

    But clearly that must mean we have an anti-semitic agenda… but because David T has written about anti-Muslim bigotry, we can’t say he is rather obsessed by Muslims.

  31. Herman — on 4th February, 2009 at 2:58 pm  

    They are perfectly happy with the ludicrously imbalanced pro-Israel coverage in the majority of the media

    What media have you been reading/watching? Certainly not any of the mainstream outlets

  32. Nick — on 4th February, 2009 at 3:05 pm  

    White phos’ is not a chemical weapon within the proper meaning of the term, anymore than a High Explosive shell is.

    I’ve thrown white phos’ hand grenades and walked straight through the smoke, it hardly even smells and is not dangerous at battlefield concentrations. It’s main use is to produces instant smoke to provide concealment for the movement of troops, provide illumination and as an incendiary weapon. Most armored vehicles, and even British military WIMIKs LandRovers have quite prominent white phos’ dispensers to provide cover from view for the evacuation of the crews.

    British troops used white phos’ grenades in the Falklands for instant smoke to provide cover from view and to clear Argentine trenches. It’s very effective and safer for advancing troops as the danger area is much less than with normal fragmentation grenades – the British L2 fragmentation grenade has a danger area of 200 metres, you cant throw it more than 30! British inventory includes white phos’ grenades, mortar shells, artillery shells and naval gunfire shells. The same would apply to artillery and mortars – that is, a smaller danger area than fragmentation shells or mortar bombs.

    It’s used by every major military. This is a manufactured controversy.

  33. TORY — on 4th February, 2009 at 3:14 pm  

    There are some differences that should be considered.

    From Tim Marshall’s Sky Blog:

    ‘The weekend’s demonstration by Britain’s Tamil population showed us how a demonstration in the UK should be run. Or rather – walked.

    The anti Israeli demos of recent weeks saw thousands of young men running through the streets, throwing crash barriers at the police and chanting obscenities. My favourite was the deeply religious young man screaming ‘Allah Akbhar you f%3king pooftah cowards’ at retreating police officers.

    The Tamils by contrast, assembled peacefully, and noisily, and cheerfully, in their tens of thousands, marched, presented a petition to Downing Street, made their point, got their media coverage, and went home.

    They did not hold aloft thousands of Tamil Tiger flags, they did not chant ‘Sinhalese To The Gas’, they did not howl ‘We are All Tigers Now’, they failed to smash up any cafes or attack Sri Lankan restaurants, nor did they attempt to storm the Sri Lankan High Commission.

    The word ‘genocide’ was banded about carelessly, as it often is these days, but the organisers of the march and the elders of the communities spoke instead of shouting, walked instead of running, and earned respect instead of arrests.’

    Now then Sunny Boy, just accept that some people are going to notice these dfferences, even if you want them to be blind.

  34. mango pickle — on 4th February, 2009 at 3:54 pm  

    Your argument isn’t convincing, Sunny.

    1. British taxpayers (the Tamil diaspora) did directly fund the LTTE prior to proscription, and ‘fundraising activities’ are still commonplace, though now illegal.

    2. Sri Lanka is localized, but not that localized. The government has, in the past few years, spurned the West and India in favour of closer ties with Iran, China and Pakistan. That has an impact on geopolitics there, admittedly to a lesser intensity and extent than I/P. The extent of the impact on Britain by these machinations is less significant, and bringing up oil is laughable. I haven’t seen many I/P articles discuss or even reference its impact on the price of oil.

    4. So numbers trump? The ICRC, UN and foreign nations have all warned of the potential for a imminent humanitarian disaster in Sri Lanka. There are a few hundred thousand people trapped in a small area between two warring factions. That you dismiss this says something about how much you know of the conflict and how far you’ll reach to justify ignoring it.

    6. PP’s coverage of SL over the years has been awful, there’s no getting around that.

    I understand David T’s motivation in writing that piece, but your justification here rang very hollow. The Gaza conflict riles people up, it’s easier to pick sides, it’s part of a larger troublesome region etc etc, but the coverage and uproar is still deafening to the point that other important conflicts (SL, Congo) are virtually ignored.

  35. Ahmed — on 4th February, 2009 at 3:58 pm  

    TORY

    .

    From Tim Marshall’s Sky Blog:

    ‘The weekend’s demonstration by Britain’s Tamil population showed us how a demonstration in the UK should be run. Or rather – walked.

    The anti Israeli demos of recent weeks saw thousands of young men running through the streets, throwing crash barriers at the police and chanting obscenities. My favourite was the deeply religious young man screaming ‘Allah Akbhar you f%3king pooftah cowards’ at retreating police officers.

    The Tamils by contrast, assembled peacefully, and noisily, and cheerfully, in their tens of thousands, marched, presented a petition to Downing Street, made their point, got their media coverage, and went home.

    They did not hold aloft thousands of Tamil Tiger flags, they did not chant ‘Sinhalese To The Gas’, they did not howl ‘We are All Tigers Now’, they failed to smash up any cafes or attack Sri Lankan restaurants, nor did they attempt to storm the Sri Lankan High Commission.”

    “Now then Sunny Boy, just accept that some people are going to notice these dfferences, even if you want them to be blind.”

    Sadly your tabloid fuelled bigotry has blinded you. I attended the Palestinian demonstartion and what you say is a perversion of it if not an outright lie. There were a few people chanting Allahu Akbar and even fewer attacking property (which I didnt see at all) but these were a tiny minority (to say it was thousands is simply a lie) in a sea of literaly ten of thousands protesting peacefully. The fact that Marshall and you emphasise them says more about your anti-Muslim bigotry.

    The fascinating thing that Marshall doesnt mention is that the Tamil Tigers pioneered suicide bombing and have been highly prolific at it. Yet do we hear Tamils or Hindus described or defined as suicide bombers or terrorists as Muslims are? no. Yet you are happy to define Muslim protestors as violent thugs based on an equally small minority.

    Marshall doesnt mntion this because the Murdoch agnecy that employs him doesnt have an anti-Tamil/Hindu agenda. it clearly has an anti-Muslim one as numerous (fake) stories about Muslims in the Sun and Fox News show.

  36. platinum786 — on 4th February, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

    What’s wrong with chanting Allah hu akbar? We’re muslim, we look out for our own kind, whats wrong with our expression of the fact we are Muslim? Also FYI Palestinians are also Christian and Jewish too, we support the rights of them as well as the Muslim Palestinians, we support the rights of all of them not to be bombed by Israel.

    As for broken windows, has anyone been convicted of it? If not, how do we not know that the window was indeed broken by a jewish person in an attempt to malign muslims?

    More typical backfoot rhetoric. It’s time David T and his typical supporters emailed the Israeli foreign ministiry and their counter parts in the hasbara brigade and ask for some guidance so you don’t all look like fools.

  37. platinum786 — on 4th February, 2009 at 4:07 pm  
  38. David T — on 4th February, 2009 at 4:14 pm  

    “If not, how do we not know that the window was indeed broken by a jewish person in an attempt to malign muslims? ”

    Indeed!

    How do we know anything.

    And so, the erstwhile anti-sectarian blog, Pickled Politics slowly rides off into the sunset…

  39. G — on 4th February, 2009 at 4:16 pm  

    “Also FYI Palestinians are also Christian and Jewish too”
    BUZZ! wrong, you lose.

    “What’s wrong with chanting Allah hu akbar? We’re muslim, we look out for our own kind, whats wrong with our expression of the fact we are Muslim?”

    Perhaps the location? Perhaps, the supremacism? Perhaps the intimidatory aspect? Perhaps, you know, because he isn’t.

  40. TORY — on 4th February, 2009 at 4:39 pm  

    ‘As for broken windows, has anyone been convicted of it? If not, how do we not know that the window was indeed broken by a jewish person in an attempt to malign muslims?’

    hmm, anyhow..

    ‘What’s wrong with chanting Allah hu akbar? We’re muslim, we look out for our own kind,..’

    Maybe because it alienates non-muslims in a cause which doesn’t only belong to Islamic nutters. Palestinians are not the playthings of the Far Left and Islamist groups.

    ‘Allah Akbhar you f%3king pooftah cowards’.

    Now, unlike Sunny, I think you are entitled to mouth off with any crap you want without fear of recrimination. You can tell me there is a crusading alliance of Zionists and Rotarians, attacking Jews to make muslims look bad and I wont really care.

    But please know that myself and many other people will never accept these politics of false grievances.

    Hundal is in denial about much of the nature of the ‘anti-Israeli movement’.

  41. Sunny — on 4th February, 2009 at 4:48 pm  

    British taxpayers (the Tamil diaspora) did directly fund the LTTE prior to proscription, and ‘fundraising activities’ are still commonplace, though now illegal.

    Erm, comparing the activities of the British govt to extortion by Tamil gangs is rather stupid, don’t you think?

    And so, the erstwhile anti-sectarian blog, Pickled Politics slowly rides off into the sunset…

    Nice attempt at a smear David T – but I’m afraid the definition of sectarianism isn’t to criticise Israel, however much you’d like to pretend that.

  42. me — on 4th February, 2009 at 4:52 pm  

    G

    “Also FYI Palestinians are also Christian and Jewish too”
    BUZZ! wrong, you lose.

    30% of the Palestinians are Christians.

    Indeed they are the original Christians.
    Many Christians have played a prominent part in the Palestinian struggle from Hanan Ashrawi to Edward Said
    What planet are you on ?.

  43. Ahmed — on 4th February, 2009 at 4:57 pm  

    If not, how do we not know that the window was indeed broken by a jewish person in an attempt to malign muslims? ”

    David T

    “Indeed!

    How do we know anything.

    And so, the erstwhile anti-sectarian blog, Pickled Politics slowly rides off into the sunset…”

    What stunning hypocrisy from despearte David- what someone posts in the comments forum suddenly becomes something authored by Pickled Politics!

    Since Harrys Place hosts people like the noxious John P (amongst many others) and their anti-Muslim venom David T has by his own criteria incriminated HP as a Muslim hating blog. LOL

  44. Beavis — on 4th February, 2009 at 5:07 pm  

    “Since Harrys Place hosts people like the noxious John P (amongst many others) and their anti-Muslim venom David T has by his own criteria incriminated HP as a Muslim hating blog. LOL”

    By definition then, PP is a jewish hating blog as Pumpkinhead786 posts here.

  45. soru — on 4th February, 2009 at 5:12 pm  

    the definition of sectarianism isn’t to criticise Israel

    So, expressing paranoid theories about individual British Jews beating themselves up is ‘criticising Isreal’?

    There really is a line: this is your chance to step back over it.

  46. G — on 4th February, 2009 at 5:31 pm  

    “30% of the Palestinians are Christians.”

    First, that is not the correct proportion. Second he said

    “Also FYI Palestinians are also Christian and Jewish too”

    Guess what part I took issue with, genius.

    Moreover,
    “Indeed they are the original Christians.”

    Yeah, Peter and Paul were Arabs. Uh-huh. Not even Palestinians think this; they are, in fact, pretty frank about being the descendants of people who were in Arabia till the 7th century. Only very recently have they started to try and identify with the pre-arab peoples of the Levant and, even then, only for western audiences. No one believes “Isa” was a Palestinian, at least no-one remotely learned (the only people I know who think this are, naturally, Anglicans).

    I’m going to add that to my “list of handy clues you’re talking to a fool”
    #52926 “Jesus was a Palestinian”.

  47. G — on 4th February, 2009 at 5:38 pm  

    P.S. demographic estimates, as opposed to the fevered delusions of “progressive opinion”, place the Palestinian Christian population between 3-6%. Naturally, it is declining, as in every middle easten country with one exception.

    Can you guess which one?

  48. Sunny — on 4th February, 2009 at 5:45 pm  

    So, expressing paranoid theories about individual British Jews beating themselves up is ‘criticising Isreal’?

    Could you point out where I did that? Or where other PP writers did that?

  49. Andrew Adams — on 4th February, 2009 at 7:29 pm  

    Cinegogs? Is that where they show Jewish films?

  50. Andrew Adams — on 4th February, 2009 at 7:31 pm  

    Oh, and whatever their differences I think everyone at HP and PP would agree that “SE” is a racist tosser.

  51. chairwoman — on 4th February, 2009 at 7:38 pm  

    Well, Well we can certainly see which member of which ethnic minority uses racist language can’t we?

  52. Refresh — on 4th February, 2009 at 7:47 pm  

    SE, we have no idea who you are. But kindly leave us.

    Its not as if you are even interested in the conversation. Attempts to derail will not work this time.

  53. G — on 4th February, 2009 at 7:53 pm  

    “Yeah, you can fuck off back to Israel, Jewboy”

    The assumption that I’m Jewish seems to be based upon little more than the fact that my knowledge of Levantine affairs is slightly less embarrassingly awful than the commentators on this blog.

    Now, you are rather more obviously a Muslim (unless the tendency among progressives to take sleights against the Islamic faith personally has advanced even further than I thought.) So my question for you is this: why do you feel it necessary to bring your squabbles to Britain? Further, why do you think British people should tolerate this? How long do you think they will continue to do so?

    P.S. “Subhuman Wastes of oxygen just like 99% of Israel.”
    You place Balad voters in this category presumably.

  54. soru — on 4th February, 2009 at 8:00 pm  

    Could you point out where I did that?

    In Comment 41, where you attacked someone for disagreeing with comment 36 by ‘platinum786′.

  55. Refresh — on 4th February, 2009 at 8:03 pm  

    Soru, don’t be silly.

  56. Leon — on 4th February, 2009 at 8:04 pm  

    Don’t bother replying to SE, he’s being dos’d (deleted on sight).

  57. marvin — on 4th February, 2009 at 8:08 pm  

    On a side note, I walked past a shop today with a large poster with the words “STOP THE TAMIL GENOCIDE” with Genocide in big dripping bloody letters. Every war against a militia is now a genocide it seems.

  58. Refresh — on 4th February, 2009 at 8:18 pm  

    ‘Now, you are rather more obviously a Muslim (unless the tendency ……’

    Do not make rash assumptions.

  59. foliage — on 4th February, 2009 at 8:38 pm  

    Case in point – once again the intensity of the argument manages to divert it and then drown it out.

    Sri Lanka, Congo, they have no chance in this sort of atmosphere.

  60. The Queen of Fiddlesticks — on 4th February, 2009 at 8:52 pm  

    sunny,
    thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts in detail … I wish you would have done it sooner.
    I agree with all your reasons, but please stop pointing back a finger at HP it solves nothing.
    No one can argue anything you have said and if they do they simply enjoy arguing.
    you can add another side but it is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on….
    ….
    My biggest concern is as you list in #3 the issue could rapidly spiral out of control into something much bigger…
    Everybody wants change but they keep doing the same thing. Trying to prove who is a bigger bad guy, who did more wrong, who died or killed more and how.
    I am done! They both suffer they are both wrong! equal partners in war that must be contained and extinguished.
    No more taking sides at all in anyway including blogs!

  61. Sid — on 4th February, 2009 at 9:56 pm  

    Come on, lets be clear on this, shall we?

    I mean it’s effing obvious that the Tamils control the global banking system, Hollywood *and* all the petrol stations from John o’groats to Land’s End.

  62. Paul Moloney — on 4th February, 2009 at 10:49 pm  

    “Sorry, I had to say it: it is making that site [HP] increasingly unreadable.”

    Ditto, Venichka – which is ironic considering how much we used to disgree in the comments there.

    P.

  63. Refresh — on 4th February, 2009 at 11:47 pm  

    ‘I think there is a danger of having too many anti HP posts, but this one was fantastic.’

    As Shariq says, a fantastic post indeed.

    But disagree about having too many posts exposing that blogshite. They have had too many years to bed down their vile hysteria, all of which needs to be undone.

    They weren’t about humanitarian intervention at all. The Euston Manifesto made it plain – that there was no future without Israel as the torch-bearer in a reshaped Middle East.

    Sunny is to be applauded for his gallant effort.

  64. blah — on 5th February, 2009 at 12:20 am  

    G

    “Now, you are rather more obviously a Muslim (unless the tendency among progressives to take sleights against the Islamic faith personally has advanced even further than I thought.) So my question for you is this: why do you feel it necessary to bring your squabbles to Britain? Further, why do you think British people should tolerate this? How long do you think they will continue to do so?”

    Sweet . G indulges in an implicit call for ethnic cleansing of Muslims. When are you going to delete this racist (imply Muslims arent British)post PP?

    He condemns (rightly) SE call for Jews to go “back” to Israel but calling on Muslims to go “back” to other lands

  65. Refresh — on 5th February, 2009 at 12:23 am  

    G, would you be a tag-partner to SE? The old 1-2?

  66. blah — on 5th February, 2009 at 12:24 am  

    chairwoman
    “Well, Well we can certainly see which member of which ethnic minority uses racist language can’t we?”

    And which ones jump to conclusions and smear an entire ethnicity because of what one does?

  67. blah — on 5th February, 2009 at 12:33 am  

    chairwoman

    “Well, Well we can certainly see which member of which ethnic minority uses racist language can’t we?”

    Point of order. Jews arent a race. They are a religion.

  68. ahem — on 5th February, 2009 at 1:10 am  

    Point of order. Jews arent a race. They are a religion.

    Oh really?

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  69. Shamit — on 5th February, 2009 at 1:25 am  

    We got points of order and I am sure we would get a lesson on Roberts Rules of Order as well — that too in the midst of what I would call a juvenile rant fest.

    Well I am a selfish git and I am pissed off. Because the nutters have taken over the asylum.

    I come here daily and the little time I get to spend here I enjoy. Its a thought provoking experience exploring range of issues with equally if not more varied opinions and perspectives on each single issue or thread. Tunnel vision is a rarity — and that’s why like many I choose to come here.

    Most of the threads we have here are very worthwhile reading — and the regular commentators on this site are top-notch. But today the regulars aren’t here. And the good natured witty banter is missing as well. Why?

    Because stupid nutters have taken over the site today and made it their religious battleground hurling insults at each other and scoring points.

    Btw, no one actually presented a coherent argument contradicting Sunny .

  70. ahem — on 5th February, 2009 at 1:31 am  

    They weren’t about humanitarian intervention at all. The Euston Manifesto made it plain – that there was no future without Israel as the torch-bearer in a reshaped Middle East.

    Did it really?

    Please spell it out for us Refresh.

    Because from where I’m stood democracy is a pretty good thing so perhaps the dictator-ridden Middle East could learn a thing or two from a place where Jo(e) Public actually has a say in how his or her country is run. But I don’t recall the Euston Manifesto saying anything about Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al facing “no future” (as you state) without copycatting Israel.

    I get the feeling you were one of those numpties who kept repeating the old canard that the Euston Manifesto was a pro-War document. Am I wrong? Google suggests not.

    In fact, let’s see what you have to say after historic Iraqi elections (which PP has failed to cover I see, despite Iraq not only benefiting from UK monetary aid but also military support – oh, those arguments are only for I/P – sorry!!!) have led to purple Iraqi fingers giving Stoppers like yourself the big flipped bird. Were you one of those “I opposed the War but let’s get behind the Trade Unions” people?

    Google suggests otherwise.

    No.

    You were a flippant point-scoring POS.

    Fancy a trip to Iraq to explain that logic to purple-fingered democracy fiends taking control of their own destiny?

    “Oh sure, Saddam was a cnut but George Bush is a monkey OMG LOL it’s an oil-grab!!!!!!! Troops out now – al Sadr is the People’s Resistance! No Islamist shibolleths for me!”

    Didn’t think so.

    I’ll wager you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say on the content of the EM with regards Israel and are just puffing shite as you know M. Hundal never signed it.

    Probably for the best – everything else he’s signed has turned to, sh.., well. You get the idea.

  71. fug — on 5th February, 2009 at 1:33 am  

    its a distraction tactic from the pro israeli lobby. the israel problem has greater potential to amplify havoc and more people are intimate with its details, thats why its that much more of a public outrage.

    not to say that sinhalese/tamil conflict(with others caught in the middle and screwed from both sides) is not important. nor is that to say that people arent making efforts in srilanka. it doesnt make good white speak, thats all. besides, the cure to the worlds problems does not lie in anglosaxonia at all.

    I thought darfur was the israeli’s favourite diversion tactic. hmm could it be they dont actually care?…..

  72. ahem — on 5th February, 2009 at 1:39 am  

    Well I am a selfish git and I am pissed off. Because the nutters have taken over the asylum.

    Well, you should expect little else.

    After declaring that I/P shouldn’t be a battleground for point-scoring, M. Hundal has done just that.

    Not once.

    Not twice.

    But at least three times.

    Don’t expect a turdless doorstep if you start flinging crap about the blogosphere. Especially if the person doing it isn’t the sharpest tool in the blogging box.

    Need we go into the Norm argument again?

    Or maybe the Tory people should vote Brown argument?

    Your host likes attracting traffic with ridiculous/controversial statements and as can be seen hates being pulled up on them.

    Btw, no one actually presented a coherent argument contradicting Sunny

    For starters, Point 7 of his argument makes no sense whatsoever.

    I/P is higher profile than Sri Lanka because there is no moral clarity on either? WTF?

    Fair enough if this was an afterthought, but your blog-meister reckons that’s the most important point. And it makes no sense whatsoever.

    Seriously.

    Undergraduate philosophy FAIL.

  73. Refresh — on 5th February, 2009 at 1:57 am  

    ahem, there are huge number of numpties around. And the numbers are growing. Even in the US, especially in the US.

    If you want to understand the basis of the Euston Manifesto I would suggest you look in the HP archives. Google not needed.

    A manifesto typically describes an ideology, the Euston version described a permanent hegemony. Arms-length colonialism.

    You used an acronym POS. What does it stand for?

  74. Sunny — on 5th February, 2009 at 3:46 am  

    Well, you should expect little else.
    After declaring that I/P shouldn’t be a battleground for point-scoring, M. Hundal has done just that.
    Not once.
    Not twice.
    But at least three times.
    Don’t expect a turdless doorstep if you start flinging crap about the blogosphere. Especially if the person doing it isn’t the sharpest tool in the blogging box.

    Oh dear. I see an idiot commenter from HP, who probably claims on there regularly that no one should pay any attention to me while simultaneously watching everything I do has come here.
    I said I/P shouldn’t be a place for whatboutery and point-scoring: an exercise that David T has now taken up with gusto while pretending he is so concerned for those Sri Lankans and he would just write about them regularly if it weren’t for Muslim gangs rampaging across London.

    I/P is higher profile than Sri Lanka because there is no moral clarity on either? WTF?

    No, idiot. I said neither issue has moral clarity and anyone who pretends there is also an idiot. Like you. Anyway, it doesn’t surprise me you’ve only come here to write “hahahaha” and “FAIL” because you have nothing really intelligent to add. Which isn’t all that surprising.

  75. eddie — on 5th February, 2009 at 9:18 am  

    Sunny that is wrong. Your 7 points highlight why you think that the two conflicts are different. In your opening statement you say, “So why might the outrage in Britain over Gaza be higher profile than the conflict in Sri Lanka?
    How about this?”

    In your point 7 (“the most important”) you state that the two conflicts are the same because there is no moral clarity in either case. I suggest you read what you wrote because it is you that is confused. Your abuse is misplaced.

  76. fug — on 5th February, 2009 at 9:34 am  

    there is moral clarity in the case of the Israel problem. more and more spoonfed usually apathetic brits are coming to know this.

    Israel is a colonial enterprise out of history, a temporary abberation which will be superceded eventually. Europeans cannot absolve their guilt by creating and supporting such a tyrannical state.

  77. G — on 5th February, 2009 at 9:55 am  

    “more and more spoonfed usually apathetic brits”

    Yes, indeed. Anti-Israel feeling does seem to be quite prevalent among stupid people in Britain, particularly those who have trouble with capital letters appparently.

    “Israel is a colonial enterprise out of history, a temporary abberation which will be superceded eventually.”
    All states are temporary, but Israel will be around long after the European degenerate credit-bubble welfare state, insulated from reality by the U.S. military umbrella and reliant to a suiciial degree on imported cheap labour, is a distant memory.

  78. coruja — on 5th February, 2009 at 10:42 am  

    Sunny,
    The correct English spelling now is ‘Sinhalese’ not Singhalese.

    Interesting post, the reactions proving your points I suppose.

    If any journalist wants a real scoop, try investigating the money raised within the UK for both Sinhalese vigilantes and the Tamil Tigers.

    Charitable contributions from and raised through Buddhist temples that sponsor Sinhalese vigilantes to kidnap & murder young Tamil men.

    Money raised through the extortion of Tamil shopkeepers in Ilford so that The Tigers can recruit, train and explode more human bombs on commuter busses.

    Money sent by respectable middleclass professionals – first generation immigrant doctors, lawyers & the like, of both ethnicities – to perpetuate the horror in the cause of their homeland. A homeland they never intend to return to, happy as they are in the suburbs of Croydon, South Harrow & etc.

  79. Jai — on 5th February, 2009 at 10:45 am  

    I have to agree with Shamit’s comment #70. I’ve recently made the same point about the “asylum” myself too.

    **************************

    Israel is a colonial enterprise out of history, a temporary abberation which will be superceded eventually

    As I keep saying, Fug miah, exactly the same argument and (the way things are going) exactly the same prediction could be made about Pakistan.

    Be careful about what you wish for. “People in glass houses”, and all that bukwaas.

  80. me — on 5th February, 2009 at 11:55 am  

    Israel is a colonial enterprise out of history, a temporary abberation which will be superceded eventually

    Jai

    “As I keep saying, Fug miah, exactly the same argument and (the way things are going) exactly the same prediction could be made about Pakistan. ”

    With regards the first point how so? and with regards the second one could argue equally this is the case with India

  81. fug — on 5th February, 2009 at 11:59 am  

    But I’m not Pakistani jai. You remind me of Maajid Nawaz.

    And i dont buy the muslim invaders thesis that you do, despite some south asian muslim tendancies to pull a foreign origin flex and modernist pretentions of ‘local purity’.

    To be fair though I dont trust congress (and nation states are pretty west toxic). Constructively madani’s composite nationalism resembles my psychogeography of south asia. Also, for the record you can’t equate palestians with brahminically and bania controlled congress.

    http://www.yahyabirt.com/?p=64 (if you are interested)

    Anyway, I guess thats your shot at pro-israeli distraction then :-P .

    Its a bit like the “aww ‘slim gangs are perpetually beating old jewish grannys over the head with jihad emblazoned cricket bats, dont say anything about the israeli crime on gaza eek.”

    Oh and for future information, the people in greenhouses ethic is a very christian one. People in greenhouses throw climate change.

  82. Jai — on 5th February, 2009 at 12:04 pm  

    Me,

    With regards the first point how so?

    Both Israel and Pakistan are artificial countries established at the tail-end of the colonial period as homelands for particular religious groups.

    and with regards the second one could argue equally this is the case with India

    In that case, let’s hear your thoughts on how “this is the case with India”, especially if you believe that “equal” arguments could be made.

  83. Jai — on 5th February, 2009 at 12:30 pm  

    Fug,

    But I’m not Pakistani jai.

    In which case, presumably you have no vested interests in the fact that identical arguments to yours can be made against Pakistan. Not that I have any interest in the destruction of that country or in continually attempting to define it as an invalid geopolitical entity that should never have existed in the first place, but I’m sure you can appreciate the various points that can be made from a logical perspective. Again, using your own logic in relation to Israel.

    And i dont buy the muslim invaders thesis that you do,

    Your knowledge of the subcontinent’s history could do with some improvement, in that case. Not all Muslims arrived as invaders by any means (especially in numerous coastal regions), and huge numbers of present-day Muslims in that part of the world are descended from indigenous converts, but the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire were not exactly “minor peripheral” matters compared to these.

    Also, for the record you can’t equate palestians with brahminically and bania controlled congress.

    Nobody’s trying to do so. This is about the historical parallels between Israel and Pakistan, not any presumed comparisons between the Palestinians and India.

    Anyway, I guess thats your shot at pro-israeli distraction then :-P .

    One could also say that’s your shot at anti-Israeli distraction, along with an attempt to whitewash some of the more unpalatable aspects of the subcontinent’s own history.

    Its a bit like the “aww ’slim gangs are perpetually beating old jewish grannys over the head with jihad emblazoned cricket bats, dont say anything about the israeli crime on gaza eek.”

    More accurately, one could define your own position as “Let’s attack the continuing existence of the Cohen’s house across the street at every conceivable opportunity, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that the same logical arguments could be made against the household of your cousins the Khans who live next door to you”.

    Oh and for future information, the people in greenhouses ethic is a very christian one.

    And desiring the destruction of someone you decide is your enemy, bolstered by your belief that you’re one of “God’s favoured people”, and irrespective of whether you’re actually justified in doing so, is very Old Testament indeed, Mr Fug.

  84. fug — on 5th February, 2009 at 1:19 pm  

    You see israel through the lens of a particular view of partition. Find a place in india, stick a bunch of damaged goods white people in the middle of it… say the western ghats.

    and see how long it (doesn’t) last.

    Even ‘indigenous’ states like hyderabad in the Deccan were swamped in the early days of india.

    (national) india is very different from (civilisational) india. The former is as much of an alien innovation as anything else. The geographic contiguity was only because of the brits and the philosophy of governance is alienating there. Those variables are not ours to control, but they are there, so the israel comparison doesnt wash too well.

    The planning and political negotiation of pakistan and israel were different too. Defining borders tinkered with the demographics in south asia, and shaved bits of administrative units of bits of hindu and muslim majority. Partition was essentially a political bargain and the strongest bargainer was Congress.

    Israel’s origins are a lot more illegitimate. Congress shares more with Project Zion planning than the Muslim League, which was born later and more as a reaction. Brahminism and Zionism are twin demons i guess.

    Muslim people like to attribute their origins in west asia for status regions. Its sad but gives a family a snese of continuity, even though sometimes its true. folks have problems with probably origins as hindus. I dont know why. Same how people still hang off caste pretentions. The prime minister of bangladesh likes to show off her ‘iraqi’ roots whenever she is begging from arab leaders. But I know that muslim families tend to resemble an ummahtic bricolage a lot of the time.

    However i see no problem in the truth that the majority of muslims in south asia have a heritage of local conversion, from all the castes, not just the oppressed ones. If you have found much numerology on the matter do let me know though. I want to know who your common sense has come to be formed like this.

    Rather than a series of consultative deliberations and negotiations. Post holocaust zionised jews ethnically cleansed vast tracts of the land they are squatting on, through actual terrorism. It was always a colonial forcing project (read early israeli speeches and compare with nehru or jinnah’s). Additionally, the importing of jews was set about on an industrial scale.

    Partition violence was not a primary policy tool. It was human spastication. Exclusive nationalism between states in south asia was never the intention.

    india and pakistan perceive themselves as kinda decolonising projects. Israel is relatively novel addition to several colonial entities still in existance.

    i dont see much use in your logic of israel up your arse stance. But understand that you enjoy it nonetheless. Sometimes logic is neat but cant contain non simplified narratives.

    but now that youve got me going, I think that the religious nationalism comparison is a better place to start from than the alien occupier one. Both give very good bad practice examples.

    I have no illusion that I am favoured above you Jai. Again you are reading with the wrong glasses. I dont argue for the killing and destruction of jews. Its the supercession of Israel by something superior I hope for.

  85. Refresh — on 5th February, 2009 at 1:24 pm  

    ‘Its the supercession of Israel by something superior I hope for.’

    How does that compare to bananabrain being a messianic jew?

  86. Leon — on 5th February, 2009 at 1:27 pm  

    Israel is a colonial enterprise out of history, a temporary abberation which will be superceded eventually

    When you say ‘superseded’ exactly what do you mean?

  87. Jai — on 5th February, 2009 at 2:17 pm  

    Fug,

    Find a place in india, stick a bunch of damaged goods white people in the middle of it…

    I believe approximately half the Jewish population of Israel is not of European origin, as has already been mentioned by other commenters several times. You are neatly (and repeatedly) ignoring this.

    Defining borders tinkered with the demographics in south asia, and shaved bits of administrative units of bits of hindu and muslim majority.

    You’re considerably downplaying what happened, especially the gigantic numbers involved. And you’re also ignoring the Sikh population, incidentally.

    national) india is very different from (civilisational) india. The former is as much of an alien innovation as anything else. The geographic contiguity was only because of the brits and the philosophy of governance is alienating there.

    Well, in a manner of speaking. The inhabitants of ‘civilisational’ India didn’t necessarily regard themselves as belonging to the same nationality in the modern sense but they did have a sense of India as a distinct geographical region, in the same way that people currently view Europe. And the term “Hindustan” was already established by the Mughal era, even though at the time it was used to refer to the mainly northern region governed by the Mughals, as opposed to the later colonial-era usage describing undivided India as a whole (originally it was of course a generic term meaning “land east of the River Indus/Sindhu”).

    The term “Bharat” to describe the whole of the subcontinent is of course very old indeed.

    Post holocaust zionised jews ethnically cleansed vast tracts of the land they are squatting on, through actual terrorism. It was always a colonial forcing project (read early israeli speeches and compare with nehru or jinnah’s). Additionally, the importing of jews was set about on an industrial scale.

    All of which also occurred in newly-formed Pakistan, with regards to the arrival of huge numbers of Muslims from the rest of India and the “ethnic cleansing” of vast tracts of land previously inhabited by Hindus and Sikhs — many, many of whom had lived there not just for centuries but in many cases literally for millennia.

    I think that the religious nationalism comparison is a better place to start from than the alien occupier one. Both give very good bad practice examples.

    That’s always been my primary point, especially since the creation of both Israel and Pakistan by “decolonising powers” as religion-affiliated homelands resulted in the displacement of absolutely huge numbers of other people who had already been there for a very long time indeed.

    Its the supercession of Israel by something superior I hope for.

    Good, at least that’s something positive from you in this matter.

  88. fug — on 5th February, 2009 at 2:41 pm  

    an akhand bharati?

    very suspect. makes sense now.

    israel was spread by the sword, post partition states by several non violent political processes then spoilers came in with malets.

    the recent historical indian role in sri lanka needs light shone on it for the situation to make more sense. what is there present (stated) role?

  89. Jai — on 5th February, 2009 at 4:07 pm  

    Fug,

    an akhand bharati?

    *Snort* Whatever ;)

    very suspect.

    Nothing “suspect” about believing that friendship, unity (or at least alliances) are better than the tragedy of animosity and division, mate. Unfortunately, what’s done is done. Sometimes it’s just better to move on, rather than desiring courses of action (even to “correct past wrongs”) which would result in even more bloodshed and destruction, especially to innocent lives on both sides.

    israel was spread by the sword, post partition states by several non violent political processes then spoilers came in with malets.

    The hundreds of millions of inhabitants of pre-Partition India — in both British-ruled territories and the semi-independent royal states — weren’t exactly given a democratic vote either on whether they wanted the nation carved into 3 separate countries, not even the people directly impacted in the regions involved. And the British colonial authorities at the time did very little to stop the bloodshed and “ethnic cleansing” which subsequently ensued around the time of actual independence, even though they had the power and the resources to do so.

    You may also wish to do some research on “Direct Action Day”, especially the motivations behind it and the subsequent consequences for other parts of India. Here is a link, as a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day

    I’m afraid “the sword” was very much involved in the creation of Pakistan too, my friend.

    To summarise, there are far more similarities than differences between the creation of Israel and Pakistan, something I think you really need to take on-board. And although this may not apply to you directly, I think that my arguments are particularly relevant in the cases of people (particularly those who have roots in Pakistan) who believe that Israel did not deserve to be created in the first place and is still an “illegitimate” state, since a great deal of the same rationale would also invalidate the formation and continued existence of Pakistan.

  90. me — on 5th February, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

    “Both Israel and Pakistan are artificial countries established at the tail-end of the colonial period as homelands for particular religious groups.”

    Except that Pakistan was established on land inhabited by teh people living there. Israel was land inhabited by someone else given to another group by a thrid colonial party. Its as if a Muslim state was carved out of Tamil Nadu.

  91. me — on 5th February, 2009 at 4:52 pm  

    Jai

    “I believe approximately half the Jewish population of Israel is not of European origin, as has already been mentioned by other commenters several times. You are neatly (and repeatedly) ignoring this.”

    because it is irrelevant. the zionist enterprise was devised entirely by European Jews living hundreds of miles away . Additionally only a part of the middle eastern jewish population in Israel were residents of Palestine.

    “All of which also occurred in newly-formed Pakistan, with regards to the arrival of huge numbers of Muslims from the rest of India and the “ethnic cleansing” of vast tracts of land previously inhabited by Hindus and Sikhs — many, many of whom had lived there not just for centuries but in many cases literally for millennia.”

    I love how you term the Muslims coming from India as an “arrival” while the Sikhs and Hindus leaving Pakistan as “ethnic cleansing”. It shows your bias beautifully. You forget to mention that Eastern Punjab was cleansed of its Muslims.

    “That’s always been my primary point, especially since the creation of both Israel and Pakistan by “decolonising powers” as religion-affiliated homelands resulted in the displacement of absolutely huge numbers of other people who had already been there for a very long time indeed.”

    Except that in the case of Pakistan that was incidental to its creation. In the case of Israel it was absolutely vital in order to create a viable “Jewish” state

    “Nothing “suspect” about believing that friendship, unity (or at least alliances) are better than the tragedy of animosity and division, mate. ”

    When you are a majority there isnt any harm in believing this since you of course will always be dominant.

    “The hundreds of millions of inhabitants of pre-Partition India — in both British-ruled territories and the semi-independent royal states — weren’t exactly given a democratic vote either on whether they wanted the nation carved into 3 separate countries, ”

    the Muslim league won 425 out of 496 seats in the elections of 1946.

    despearte stuff Jai

  92. Jai — on 5th February, 2009 at 5:07 pm  

    Me,

    Except that Pakistan was established on land inhabited by teh people living there.

    Other people were also “living there”.

    You forget to mention that Eastern Punjab was cleansed of its Muslims.

    Most of the rest of post-Partition India was not. Can you say the same in the case of the former Hindu and Sikh population of Pakistan ?

    Except that in the case of Pakistan that was incidental to its creation.

    How convenient. Not so convenient or pleasant for the outnumbered Hindu and Sikh population of the region at the time, of course.

    When you are a majority there isnt any harm in believing this since you of course will always be dominant.

    Only if you view your religious affiliation as being your primary identity, superceding nationality and regional identities.

    You see, this is the whole problem — people focusing on differences rather than areas of common ground.

    despearte stuff Jai

    Likewise, mate ;)

  93. Jai — on 5th February, 2009 at 5:37 pm  

    Incidentally, for some clarity:

    the Muslim league won 425 out of 496 seats in the elections of 1946.

    I believe “Me” is actually referring to the following (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Muslim_League) :

    In the Constituent Assembly elections of 1946, the League won 425 out of 496 seats reserved for Muslims (and about 89.2% of Muslim votes) on a policy of creating an independent state of Pakistan, and with an implied threat of secession if this was not granted.

    In the paragraph concerned in post #90, I was referring to the entire population of pre-Partition India, not just the Muslim population.

  94. Labina — on 6th February, 2009 at 2:35 pm  

    I think ‘Britain is also involved by virtue of the fact that we do have Muslim fanatics in the UK who use Gaza as an excuse for their terrorism’ is besides the point. The main thing to remember is that Britain was the architect of Palestine’s misery and is implicated because of that fact.

  95. Sunny — on 6th February, 2009 at 3:37 pm  

    israel was spread by the sword, post partition states by several non violent political processes then spoilers came in with malets.

    As was Islam, in many cases, certainly under Aurungzeb, in South Asia. What’s your point?

  96. Uh-Oh — on 9th February, 2009 at 11:47 am  

    Get the latest news from the Eelam struggle here:

    http://www.tamilnet.tv

  97. Truth about Sri lanka — on 9th February, 2009 at 11:32 pm  

    Media Freedom is lost for both Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka….also sri lanka is making false propaganda in the foreign coutries with the label “fighting terroism” but in truth what’s happening is “tamil genocide and state terrorism” going in sri lanka….
    Sri Lankan site that reveals truth about what’s happening in Sri Lanka is inactive and shutdown due to government’s interference……

    In this land of the most compassionate Lord Buddha…..

    Sinhala Buddhists who believe this land belongs to the most compassionate Lord Buddha and constitutionally calls it the “Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka”, sing with pride “In wisdom and strength renewed / Ill-will, hatred, strife all ended / In love enfolded, a mighty nation / Marching onward, all as one / Lead us, Mother, to fullest freedom.” as their National Anthem.

    And….. in this compassionate, democratic Buddhist land enfolded with love, in wisdom and fullest freedom, media is forbidden to raise a dissenting voice. Media is forbidden to criticise the “law” of the ruling regime. The media is forbidden to speak for the people.

    Many who thought they as the media have a right to freedom of expression, they have a right to information, that the people also have the same right and that it is a fundamental right in a modern civilised society, have been told very bluntly and at times most brutally, that it isn’t so in this land of the compassionate, democratic republic, run by a “patriotic” regime.

    The Tamil media in the North were the first to have been told this bluntly and ruthlessly while the Colombo media did not want those dissenting voices in the North, heard elsewhere. They had to learn that lesson, first hand.

    And….that was a lesson learnt by some, who are not with us to tell their story. That is a lesson learnt by some, who don’t have the right to say it, because they have a right to live some time more. For a lot, it was their station “Sirasa” that went ablaze with that lesson. It was their station that was smashed and set on fire to teach a lesson.

    For Lasantha Wickramatunge, an editor with a passion for uncompromising media professionalism, it was a challenge to face. A challenge he never minced words, in meeting. He had his own aggressive style in meeting the challenge. Admired and respected but left alone without political backing.

    And….. he, therefore, could not surmount this challenge, all by himself.

    A lesson learnt, that needs no repeats to learn. This compassionate Sinhala Buddhist land does not tolerate “dissent”. Those who would not want to learn that living, would have to learn that in death. We who live, would come back when “dissent” comes back as a democratic right, accepted and enjoyed in a modern land of compassion.

    Till then, good bye!

    Editorial Board
    Lankadissent

    http://www.lankadissent.com/

  98. tanveer razak — on 15th May, 2009 at 7:14 pm  

    I am a Sri Lankan muslim. I just want to say a few words here.

    Israel is a model for Sri Lanka. since 2006 government have planned how to destroy Ltte.

    The things happening right now in Sri Lankan is not less than what happened to Jews in 1940′s.

    more then 10,000 people died and more then 30,000 disabled. It does not happened in Israel.
    Now Sri Lanka is planning kibute villages. True. The set up is almost ready in SL.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.