• Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sajini W
    • Sid’s blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • 1820
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Al Jazeera the ‘hostile enemy’


    by Sid on 6th February, 2009 at 6:30 pm    

    From VOA News:

    Israeli officials said they plan to make it harder for the Arabic television network al-Jazeera to operate in Israel and the West Bank.

    Media reports said Israel will not renew the work visas of some Israeli-based al-Jazeera employees, and that the network’s reporters will have less access to news conferences and briefings.

    Israeli officials tied the move to the decision last month by Qatar, which owns al-Jazeera, to suspend relations with Israel to protest its offensive in the Gaza Strip.

    An Israeli official said Qatar created obstacles by closing Israel’s trade office in Doha.

    Qatar had been the only Gulf Arab state to have trade ties with Israel.

    If Sheikh Hamad, Emir of the State of Qatar and owner of Al Jazeera closes the Israeli trade office in Doha, he might well expect to see Qatari journalists imposed with restricted access and al Jazeerah declared a “hostile enemy” in due response.

    Israel has decided to deny work visas to the the Al Jazeera reporters and allow the station’s journalists to talk only to spokespeople for the prime minister, foreign minister and Israeli military.

    The moves come in response to a decision by Qatar, which launched and funds Al Jazeera, to sever ties with Israel in the aftermath of Israel’s 22-day military operation in Gaza.

    Israeli leaders barred reporters from freely entering Gaza during the war and are now “penalising” al Jazeera for Qatar’s political decisions. If Qatar severs political ties with Israel, Israel can certainly block al Jazeera from reporting in Gaza if it wants to.

    Israeli leaders have not censured al Jazeera on accusations of bias or called to question a lack of journalistic objectivity. At least not outrightly. They have said that they are reacting to a political act of protest by the Doha government. But can Israel, or indeed any nation, freeze foreign journalistic activity and continue to contend that it stands for ‘Freedom of the Press’?

    Answers in the usual place.



      |   Trackback link   |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Current affairs, Media, Middle East




    62 Comments below   |   Add your own

    1. Imran Khan — on 6th February, 2009 at 6:35 pm  

      Its called intimidation of the media. They are having a go at the BBC as well.

      Freedom of speech didn’t apply here despite the fact that Israeli Media comentators said that Al-Jazeerah was the most balanced channel for news!

    2. Hermes — on 6th February, 2009 at 9:55 pm  

      [nuked]

    3. digitalcntrl — on 7th February, 2009 at 1:32 am  

      This actually applies to all media. Simply put there was no other media covering the recent Israeli attacks on Gaza. Al Jazeera had the benefit of already being in Gaza, so the Israelis could do little. Now they wish to pre-empt such a situation so they can have their little war without outside interference.

    4. fug — on 7th February, 2009 at 4:22 am  

      Zionism is a different breed of nastiness than nazism.

      These days al jazeera english seem too fond of playing the wrong stale white symbols and pandering to the hegemonic status quo view + local frills on everything, though Avi Cohens Inside USA is quality. Their envelope pushing days were in the earlier stages of TWAT and their staff have suffered bloodily at the hands of the Ellipse of Evil.

      In terms of alternative narrative, Press TV have superceded them now, even with a much lower budget. Look forward to seeing the gripping white narrative loosen more and more as the years roll on.

    5. cjcjc — on 7th February, 2009 at 9:49 am  

      I don’t blame them if they broadcast stuff like this (our old friend Qaradawi)

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5678764.ece

      Zionists are no different from the Nazis.

      The voice of reason I see.

    6. marvin — on 7th February, 2009 at 11:15 am  

      Zionists are no different from the Nazis.

      Zionism is a different breed of nastiness than nazism.

      Zionists just want a homeland for the Jews, on a land the size of Wales.

      Nazis want to kill all Jews, non-whites, and anyone they deem. They killed 11 million people in gas chambers.

      But to some Muslims, and far-leftists, Zionism is worse or equal to Nazism. That’s because they have no moral compass.

      playing the wrong stale white symbols

      Yeah, Al Jazeera is well coconut!

    7. Sid — on 7th February, 2009 at 12:30 pm  

      I’m hoping that this thread won’t turn into the open sewer that previous threads on I/P have managed to so effortlessly.

      Play nice people. Try and concentrate on the question posed in the article and not on venting simplistic and tiresome prejudices. And remember, any references to “Zionazis” will be nuked.

      Thank you.

    8. blah — on 7th February, 2009 at 12:49 pm  

      marvin
      “Zionists just want a homeland for the Jews, on a land the size of Wales.”

      Which is inhabited by and belongs to someone else

      Nice try

    9. blah — on 7th February, 2009 at 12:52 pm  

      Sid should also mention that India has banned Al Jazeera since it didnt like its coverage of atrocities in Kashmir and the genocide in Gujurat. And of course of our beloved ex leaders Bush and Blair bombed al jazeera in Kabul AND Baghdad. Where was western free speech on that day?

      Its funny to talk to Muslims about “free speech” then close and bomb the most well known media in the Muslim world.

      Arab governments also ban it but they are dictatorships- Israel, India the US/UK claim they are not.

    10. blah — on 7th February, 2009 at 12:56 pm  

      marvin

      “But to some Muslims, and far-leftists, Zionism is worse or equal to Nazism. That’s because they have no moral compass.”

      And zionists have a moral compass?
      Ive lost track of the number of times zionists have compared the Palestinians to Nazis (or use terms like “Islamofascist”) ……and its the Palestinians whose land is being occupied!

    11. tevya — on 7th February, 2009 at 2:04 pm  

      @blah - it doesn’t work to cry moral equivalence.

      Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (and Hamas, al Qaeda, etc.) get compared to the Nazis because they compared themselves to the Nazis, took their funding, sheltered their war criminals, copied their propaganda and, as Qaradawi did last week, praised the Nazis’ genocide of the Jews and longed for its return at the hands of the Muslims.

      The Jews were among the principal victims of the Nazis.

      Some equivalence, eh?

      Looks like a lost moral compass to me.

    12. blah — on 7th February, 2009 at 2:34 pm  

      tevya

      “Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (and Hamas, al Qaeda, etc.) get compared to the Nazis because they compared themselves to the Nazis, took their funding, sheltered their war criminals, copied their propaganda and, as Qaradawi did last week, praised the Nazis’ genocide of the Jews and longed for its return at the hands of the Muslims.”

      Utter rubbish. One could easily say the same for Zionists.

      and Palestinians are the principal victims of zionism

      After their treatment of Palestinians for zionists to talk about moral compass is laughable

    13. tevya — on 7th February, 2009 at 2:37 pm  

      blah - “Utter rubbish. One could easily say the same for Zionists.”

      Expand on this please - with facts?

    14. marvin — on 7th February, 2009 at 2:46 pm  

      Blah is in the business of defending Al Qeada, Hamas etc from nasty accusations. And anyway the Zionists are worse etc.

      Who are “the Zionists” blah? Do they have charter like Hamas? Do you believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion blah?

      and its the Palestinians whose land is being occupied!

      I take it you mean the whole of Israel. Cos there were no Jews there before, innit. They shipped ‘em in from Europe didn’t they?

    15. marvin — on 7th February, 2009 at 2:59 pm  

      Sorry Sid. Will try to stick to topic. I’m not surprised that Israel sees Al Jazeera as hostile, after they threw a birthday party for child murderer Samir Kuntar

    16. digitalcntrl — on 7th February, 2009 at 3:15 pm  

      “Sid should also mention that India has banned Al Jazeera since it didnt like its coverage of atrocities in Kashmir and the genocide in Gujurat.”

      Funny the way that “genocide” is thrown about these days to describe a bout of communalism. And FYI Indian Law requires 75% of any news channel be Indian owned, Al Jazeera does not fit that profile, please do not guess the intentions of others to push your own political views.

    17. fug — on 7th February, 2009 at 3:37 pm  

      kudos to al jazeera for all they have done. but they use the same ‘grammar’ as the bbc et al. press tv has its own distinct grammar.

    18. blah — on 7th February, 2009 at 3:44 pm  

      digitalcntrl

      “Funny the way that “genocide” is thrown about these days to describe a bout of communalism.”

      What you mean is that only Muslims were slaughetred so it cant really be counted as genocide.

      Gujurat was a planned genocide of Muslims in that state by Hindus. Lists of where Muslims lived were handed out. In whole rows of shops only the shops belonging to Gujurati Muslims were destroyed. It wasnt “communalism” One group with the consent of the authorities was systematically targetted -its members exterminated , its women raped often gang raped its historic building obliterated. If that isnt genocide nothing is.

      ” And FYI Indian Law requires 75% of any news channel be Indian owned, Al Jazeera does not fit that profile, please do not guess the intentions of others to push your own political views.”

      Really? We are talking about foreign news channels. Why does India allow CNN which isnt 75% Indian owned? The explicit reason given was al Jazeeras coverage of Gujurat and what the Indian army is doing in Kashmir.

    19. blah — on 7th February, 2009 at 3:49 pm  

      marvin

      “Sorry Sid. Will try to stick to topic. I’m not surprised that Israel sees Al Jazeera as hostile, after they threw a birthday party for child murderer Samir Kuntar”

      1) Israel didnt allow ANY news agencies into Gaza.It also has the habit of shooting journalists who do try and report what is going on. This is not a democracy.

      2) The only evidence that Samir Kuntar is a “child murderer” comes from Israel. Hardly a balanced source.

      3) Benjamin Netanyahu past and probable future PM of Israel hosted a party to celebrate the bombing of the King David hotel by zionist terrorists in 1946 which killed 92 Brits.

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article690085.ece

      So how can we trust Netanyahu and not view him as hostile?

    20. marvin — on 7th February, 2009 at 3:53 pm  

      Ive lost track of the number of times zionists have compared the Palestinians to Nazis

      Well, seeing as you’ve lost your compass, I expect your counter is up the spout too :P
      Yes, Hamas and Hizbollah has been compared to the Nazis, by themselves and by others. Especially when they do the unmistakeable fuhrer salute. I have not come across anyone who says the Palestinians (as opposed to Hamas) are Nazis. Palestinians did however once vote for a ‘politician’ who’s affectionately nick named as Hitler.

    21. blah — on 7th February, 2009 at 3:54 pm  

      “Blah is in the business of defending Al Qeada, Hamas etc from nasty accusations. And anyway the Zionists are worse etc.”

      Pathethic. I mentioned the Palestinians and you bring up al Qaeda. I dont defend al qaeda anymore than I would defend Isrel.

      “Who are “the Zionists” blah? Do they have charter like Hamas? ”

      They are people who wish to establish a state on someone else land. They have a charter of establishing a racist state on someone elses land

      “Do you believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion blah?”

      Truly pathethic. Whenever someone brings up the zionists dispossession of the Palestinians in the Levant you bring up something that happeneed in Europe in the 1930s.

      and its the Palestinians whose land is being occupied!

      “I take it you mean the whole of Israel. Cos there were no Jews there before, innit. They shipped ‘em in from Europe didn’t they?”

      The Jews who had lived in Palestine for a long time werent the people behind the zionist movement. The Zionists movement was cooked up in Europe

    22. marvin — on 7th February, 2009 at 3:58 pm  

      2) The only evidence that Samir Kuntar is a “child murderer” comes from Israel. Hardly a balanced source.

      Don’t be a fucking scumbag. Both the Guardian and the New York Times take this as fact, neither could be considered remotely Zionist.

      Read the account in the mothers words here

    23. marvin — on 7th February, 2009 at 4:02 pm  

      racist state

      A racist state where everybody had equal rights under the law, where 1.2 million Arabs live in peace alongside Jewish people. You really do talk shit blah.

    24. blah — on 7th February, 2009 at 4:03 pm  

      marvin

      “Yes, Hamas and Hizbollah has been compared to the Nazis, by themselves and by others. Especially when they do the unmistakeable fuhrer salute. I have not come across anyone who says the Palestinians (as opposed to Hamas) are Nazis. Palestinians did however once vote for a ‘politician’ who’s affectionately nick named as Hitler.

      Yes people who try and get back the land stolen from their families by oppressors are the same as Nazis intent on extreminating a whole race.

      The way zionists use the extermination of European Jews to cover up their ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is truly repulsive and show how they have zero moral compass.

      Its rather like al Qeada using the Bosnian genocide to justify 9/11. No one buys that so why do people buy zionists’ ?

    25. marvin — on 7th February, 2009 at 4:15 pm  

      ethnic cleansing of Palestinians

      Zionists aren’t what they used to be eh! They’ve gone and left 1,999,000 Palestinian Gazans still alive. I think you need to look up the term ethnic cleansing.

    26. blah — on 7th February, 2009 at 4:15 pm  

      Zionists use of the Nazis to cover up their crimes is further compounded by the fact that:

      1) Zionist groups such as the Stren Gang collaboarted with the Nazis

      2) Zionists had contempt for most European Jews who they viewed as religious and passive

      “One Cow in Palestine (!) is worth more than all the Jews in Poland”
      ….Izaak Greenbaum

      3) Zionist agencies discouraged/blocked the entry of Jewish refugees to other lands insisting they go only to Palestine. The result was many Jews lost their lives.

      “Ben Gurion informed a meeting of Labor Zionists in Great Britain in 1938: “If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative.” Ibid., p.149

      3) Holocaust survivors were treated with contempt in Israel and called “sabonhim” (bars of soap)and Jews like Rudolph Kastner who collaborated with the Nazis were given positions in the Israeli governemnt

      As Norman Finklestein and Peter Novick (in the excellent “Holocaust and the collective Memory) have brilliantly shown the Holocaust only became emphasised by Israel and the Jewish diaspora after 1967 when Israel had conquered huge amounts of Arab territory.

      And thus it is used now to justify Israels crimes

    27. marvin — on 7th February, 2009 at 4:20 pm  

      How was the Holocaust Revisionist conference in Tehran by the way? I think you’d be happy to use the term ‘holohoax’ if you didn’t know your comments would be deleted.

    28. blah — on 7th February, 2009 at 4:21 pm  

      marvin

      “Both the Guardian and the New York Times take this as fact, neither could be considered remotely Zionist.”

      You dont consider the NYT zionist? LOL

      “A racist state where everybody had equal rights under the law, ”

      Now THATS funny. Arabs are equal to Jews in Israel.
      Thats why someone from Peru who converts to Judaism and moves to Israel has more rights than a Palestinian who has lived there for 2000 years.

      “Zionists aren’t what they used to be eh! They’ve gone and left 1,999,000 Palestinians still alive. I think you need to look up the term ethnic cleansing.”

      Glad you find the explsion of 750,000 Palestinians in order to create the state of Israel in 1948 so funny.

      Perhaps we could get together and have a chuckle at the pogroms of Jews in teh 19th century?

      Actually I think you need to look up the term ethnic cleansing and refelect how many Israeli towns were once populated by Palestinians now expelled by those brave zionists.

      Id recommened Ilan Pappes book “Ethnic Cleansing in Palestine”

    29. Steve M — on 7th February, 2009 at 5:29 pm  

      blah,

      You must be very glad that the State of Israel exists. It means that you can use the term ‘Zionist’ in your rhetoric. Otherwise, you’d have to use the term ‘Jew’ and that would make you a piece-of-shit racist scum-bag (which of course you’re not).

    30. chairwoman — on 7th February, 2009 at 5:31 pm  

      They are people who wish to establish a state on someone else land. They have a charter of establishing a racist state on someone elses land

      What about the 2,000,000 Jews already living there in 1948?

    31. digitalcntrl — on 7th February, 2009 at 7:08 pm  

      “What you mean is that only Muslims were slaughetred so it cant really be counted as genocide.”

      Then should we include Sunni/Shite violence in Iraq as genocide? Kurd/Arab violence in Iraq? How about Kurds in Turkey genocide as well? Northern Island genocide too?

      Give me a break under your standard virtually any targeting of the other is “genocide”. Real genocide is the complete or substantial extermination of and entire ethnicity or religious grouping. I doubt 780-1,500 Indian Muslims of the 150 million in India constitute that.

      “Gujurat was a planned genocide of Muslims in that state by Hindus. Lists of where Muslims lived were handed out. In whole rows of shops only the shops belonging to Gujurati Muslims were destroyed. It wasnt “communalism””

      Huh? That is the very definition of communalism/sectarianism.

      “One group with the consent of the authorities was systematically targetted -its members exterminated , its women raped often gang raped its historic building obliterated. If that isnt genocide nothing is”

      Of course you fail to mention that the “victim” behaved in the similar fashion to its supposed prepretators. BTW is that genocide too? Your sense of objectivity is overwhelming me.

    32. comrade — on 7th February, 2009 at 7:37 pm  

      http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=470

      The newspeak in Israel and in the centres of imperialism is reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda machine, describing as it does the victims of Gaza as terrorists and Israel’s mass slaughter as an act of self-defence. Hordes of academics and journalists have been recruited into the campaign to demonise Hamas, just as they were recruited to demonise the late Yasser Arafat and his Fatah movement not so long ago.

      The ideology of zionism, by its very nature, stands for occupation, ethnic cleansing and serial mass murders. Out of this ideology, as Ilan Pappe correctly observed on 2 January this year, are born the hypocrisy and “righteous fury” which have throughout accompanied zionist dispossession of the Palestinians, whereby every act of ethnic cleansing, occupation, wholesale destruction and massacre is always presented as a morally justified act of self-defence committed by a reluctant Israel against the worst enemies of humanity.

      Let it give deep consideration to the following words from Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, slightly adapted by Tariq Ali for an article that appeared in the Guardian of 30 December:

      “I am a Palestinian. Hath not a Palestinian eyes? Hath not a Palestinian hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Jew is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that … the villainy you teach me, I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”

    33. Jai — on 7th February, 2009 at 7:43 pm  

      “Blah”, historically activities such as imperial expansion, conquest, genocide and the annexation of territory occupied by other groups were by no means exclusive to the Nazis. And that’s before we even address your remarks about the mass rape of women and the destruction of historical buildings, along with ethnic cleansing and the appropriation of lands previously inhabited by people who had been there for an extremely long time.

      I recommend in the strongest possible terms that it’s in your own best interests that you desist from this particular line of argument, especially your repeated attempts to draw comparisons with the Nazis, otherwise I guarantee that this is going to rebound and backfire at you very badly indeed.

    34. comrade — on 7th February, 2009 at 9:52 pm  

      The jewish population was only six percent at that time in Palestine. How did the six percent of the polulation manage to take over nearly eighty percent of the Palestinian Land upto date?

    35. Sunny — on 7th February, 2009 at 10:22 pm  

      What is this debate about anyway? I mean how many times do people want to go over 1948 before it gets boring?

    36. Steve M — on 7th February, 2009 at 10:30 pm  

      Reading the newspaper reports and documentation from the time is far better than arguing with people who don’t have any real clue. Such reports are readily available on the Web for anyone who is prepared to spend a few minutes digging it out - which lets out most people I guess.

    37. douglas clark — on 7th February, 2009 at 11:40 pm  

      I kind of hope that Al Jazeera are not silenced. It would be a brave journalist that took a job with them, right now.

      Hopefully their journalists are provided with incredibly good death benefits, given the amount of accidental targeting they seem to encounter.

    38. blah — on 7th February, 2009 at 11:48 pm  

      [nuked]

    39. blah — on 8th February, 2009 at 12:16 am  

      Jai
      “I recommend in the strongest possible terms that it’s in your own best interests that you desist from this particular line of argument, especially your repeated attempts to draw comparisons with the Nazis, otherwise I guarantee that this is going to rebound and backfire at you very badly indeed.”

      What are you smoking Jai? repeated attempts?
      I didnt even compare the zionists to Nazis but simply pointed out the absurd notion of claiming that Hamas or MB are Nazis could equally be used with zionists.

      you dont seem troubled by the Palestians being compared to Nazis

      You really must try and hide your anti-Muslim animus more

      Seems you still havent gotten over Muslim rule in india

      You poor thing

    40. Sid — on 8th February, 2009 at 12:21 am  

      blah, would you say that Pakistan’s actions of Bangladesh which resulted in some 2 million people killed, displaced and sexually molested, and which was a bona fide genocide by definition, means that the Pakistan governemnt of 1971 can be compared to Nazis?

    41. blah — on 8th February, 2009 at 12:53 am  

      “blah, would you say that Pakistan’s actions of Bangladesh which resulted in some 2 million people killed, displaced and sexually molested, and which was a bona fide genocide by definition, means that the Pakistan governemnt of 1971 can be compared to Nazis?”

      yes absolutely

    42. blah — on 8th February, 2009 at 12:57 am  

      Steve M
      “Otherwise, you’d have to use the term ‘Jew’ and that would make you a piece-of-shit racist scum-bag (which of course you’re not”

      Why is using the term “Jew” indication that someone is a “piece-of-shit racist scum-bag”? Dont jews call themselves this? Are Jews then that too since they use the term to refer to themselves?

      Why isnt using the term “Arab” or “Muslim” also an indication that a person is a “piece-of-shit racist scum-bag” ?

      You are absurd

    43. douglas clark — on 8th February, 2009 at 1:03 am  

      This, comparing folk to the Nazis, is completely passé. Let’s compare folk to Pol Pot.

    44. Sid — on 8th February, 2009 at 1:07 am  

      blah, good news. Will you be joining me in calling for the senior members of the Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan and Bangladesh and in the UK to be tried for genocide?

    45. Jai — on 8th February, 2009 at 1:46 pm  

      I didnt even compare the zionists to Nazis but simply pointed out the absurd notion of claiming that Hamas or MB are Nazis could equally be used with zionists.

      Now now Blah, don’t try to put on a fake coquettish innocent act here. We all still remember your spirited (and unnecessarily lengthy) defence of your usage of the word “Nazis” to describe the people concerned in another recent thread, which basically came down to whining “But some Jewish people use the term themselves, so why can’t I ?!”

      Everything I mentioned in #33 applies to numerous historical (and, unfortunately, also several present-day) groups as well as the Nazis, to various degrees, and in some cases even more so. And since you’ve raised the matter (I didn’t, incidentally), yes some of them indeed happened to be Muslim.

      Which raises the following questions:

      1) Would you claim that, according to your own definition of the term, the other groups could also be defined as “Nazis” ?

      2) Would you agree that, historically, some Muslim groups were also guilty of the matters listed in #33 (in different degrees, both during the establishment of Pakistan and further back during the subcontinent’s pre-colonial history) and which you have accused other groups of being guilty of in your own posts ?

      and (more pertinently):

      3) Why have you decided to draw comparisons specifically with the Nazis (out of all the historical groups you could have referenced); is it because you genuinely believe this to be the most accurate example, or is it simply because you’re deliberately trying to hit Jewish people where it will hurt them the most, considering their own horrific experiences at the hands of the Nazis ?

      If your answer to 1), 2), and the first part of 3) is “Yes”, then we can acknowledge that you are debating honestly and in good faith, rather than being motivated by a desire to promote the interests of what you regard as being “the home team” and make hypocritical non-existent assertions of being in a position of overall moral superiority.

      you dont seem troubled by the Palestians being compared to Nazis

      That’s because it’s patently absurd to compare ordinary Palestinians to Nazis. Comparing some of Hamas’s attitudes to the Nazis, however, is a different matter, considering their self-avowed desire to destroy Israel and (more recently) the rants about how “every Jewish child worldwide is now a viable target”. I’m sure that you wouldn’t disagree that these are very “Nazi” characteristics indeed, being the reasonable and objective fellow that you obviously are.

      You really must try and hide your anti-Muslim animus more

      My dear friend, you really must try to hide your hysterical, blindly pro-Muslim jingoism more, not to mention your own anti-Jewish animus. The fact that in my previous post I mentioned neither India nor Muslims yet you have jumped to numerous misguided conclusions about what I was referring to speaks volumes about your own attitudes and agenda. Feeling a little sensitive and self-conscious about some of the nastier aspects of the subcontinent’s experiences at the hands of some of our more belligerent Muslim friends, are we ?

      Seems you still havent gotten over Muslim rule in india

      Neither have you (in more ways than one), if you catch my drift ;)

    46. fug — on 8th February, 2009 at 4:03 pm  

      To go into another example of a media agency getting dumped on by a state, who remembers when Tehelka showed the Indian Defence Minister to be corrupt.

      They barely survived the anger of the state, but they did, and they are stronger for it now. They endured suffereing not for attention’s sake, but because they have ethics.

    47. blah — on 8th February, 2009 at 4:14 pm  

      Sid
      “blah, good news. Will you be joining me in calling for the senior members of the Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan and Bangladesh and in the UK to be tried for genocide?”

      Yes. As soon as Narendra Modi is.

    48. blah — on 8th February, 2009 at 4:19 pm  

      blah

      “You really must try and hide your anti-Muslim animus more”

      Jai
      “My dear friend, you really must try to hide your hysterical, blindly pro-Muslim jingoism more, not to mention your own anti-Jewish animus. The fact that in my previous post I mentioned neither India nor Muslims yet you have jumped to numerous misguided conclusions about what I was referring to speaks volumes about your own attitudes and agenda”

      er but then you afterwards mentioned Pakistanis atrocities in Bangladesh

      and how else would a person interpret your comment :

      “otherwise I guarantee that this is going to rebound and backfire at you very badly indeed.”

      what did you mean by this Jai ?
      Care to explain?

      “Feeling a little sensitive and self-conscious about some of the nastier aspects of the subcontinent’s experiences at the hands of some of our more
      belligerent Muslim friends, are we ?”

      Not at all. Im extremely proud of Muslim rule in India.
      Its you Hinduvata fascists who stir up genocidal hatred of Indian Muslims based on a warped view of it that should be ashamed. A person would no more accept the Hinduvata or zionist view of Muslim history than they would the Hitlerian view of Jewish history .

    49. blah — on 8th February, 2009 at 4:27 pm  

      I BTW find it bizarre Jai accuses me of

      “blindly pro-Muslim jingoism”

      straight after I said that Pakistans actions in Bangladesh in 1971 could be described as Nazi.

      He doesnt object to this but objects to me quoting Jewish people using the same term for Israel.
      But he isnt anti-Muslim.

      Apparently “blind pro-Muslim jingoism” in Jai’s eyes involves opposing and mentioning the killing genocide and rape of Muslims.

    50. Sid — on 8th February, 2009 at 4:44 pm  

      Yes. As soon as Narendra Modi is.

      Are you making a moral equivalence between 1000 Muslims killed by Hindus in an incident of communalist violence and 2 million Muslims and Hindus killed by Muslims in an incident of national and ethnic genocide?

    51. blah — on 8th February, 2009 at 5:02 pm  

      blah
      “Yes. As soon as Narendra Modi is.”

      Sid
      “Are you making a moral equivalence between 1000 Muslims killed by Hindus in an incident of communalist violence and 2 million Muslims and Hindus killed by Muslims in an incident of national and ethnic genocide?”

      Gujurat was a planned genocide of Muslims. You denying it is genocide is the same as denying what happened in
      Bangladesh was. Clearly 2 million deaths are worse than 1000 but as far as Im aware no Jamaati/Pakistani killed 2 million people with their bare hands- yet you rightly want them on charges of genocide -so why not Modi ?.

      At what point does a genocide become a genocide- after a million deaths? And are you suggesting someone like Modi responsible for the deaths of thousands (or even or one) should get away with it?

      How about this Sid- anyone who has murdered should be punished, regardless of who they are?

    52. Jai — on 8th February, 2009 at 5:54 pm  

      Blah:

      I see you’re getting a little angry and aggressive. Good. It’s better that you show your true colours, although it’s not a good debating tactic for you to reveal your hand (or your weaknesses) so easily. That advice is a little freebie just for you, “you poor thing”.

      er but then you afterwards mentioned Pakistanis atrocities in Bangladesh

      No, that was Sid earlier in the thread. I made no mention of Bangladesh whatsoever, although I do fully support Sid’s stance and his line of argument.

      Do you claim that the establishment of West Pakistan as a religiously-affiliated state involved no “ethnic cleansing” of Hindus and Sikhs in that part of the subcontinent (frequently involving extreme violence), or that it did not involve the displacement of huge numbers of people belonging to these groups from lands they had inhabited for centuries in many cases and for thousands of years in others, or that (by your own apparent definition of the term) the sheer numbers killed would not constitute a localised “genocide” ?

      what did you mean by this Jai ?
      Care to explain?

      I already did, in my previous post.

    53. Jai — on 8th February, 2009 at 6:21 pm  

      Blah:

      Its you Hinduvata fascists who stir up genocidal hatred of Indian Muslims based on a warped view of it that should be ashamed. A person would no more accept the Hinduvata or zionist view of Muslim history than they would the Hitlerian view of Jewish history.

      I’m not a Hindu.

      Nice try, but no Cuban cigar for you. Not even a fake one.

      Im extremely proud of Muslim rule in India.

      Of course you are. Why am I not surprised ?

      Are you proud of the way it was originally established, and subsequently expanded and enforced ?

      Are you proud of the idea of one group of people forcibly imposing their rule on another, particularly if it involves an imperial system of government ? Not to mention the occasional invasion and conquest of the latter’s territory, massacre, torture of dissidents, destruction of historical buildings and outright mass murder. Not by all Muslim imperial rulers by any means, mind you, but we did have our fair share of, shall we say, colourful characters. There was a world of difference between Akbar (especially in his later years) and Aurangzeb, or Shahjahan and Muhmud of Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori or Qutbuddin.

      Muslim imperial rule in the subcontinent certainly did result in a considerable infusion of positive elements into many, many aspects of subcontinental society during the region’s medieval period, and some segments could genuinely be described as being amongst the “golden ages” of the subcontinent’s very long history…..but unless you can truthfully answer “No; these things were deeply regrettable and I am definitely not proud of those events and actions” to the questions I’ve just asked, without any rantings about Hindutva and Zionism or revisionist denials of recorded historical events, it will still raise a major question mark regarding your own objectivity, biases and motivations.

      Unless you’re asserting that the Delhi Sultanate followed by the Mughal Empire both established, expanded and enforced their rule in the subcontinent by peaceful, democratic means, with the full support and acquiescence of the various peoples who ended up falling within “their” territory over the centuries. Are you ? ;)

      I already know one possible answer, and one or two other commenters on this thread have already given a clear description of what they regard as your real stance on such matters, but it would be interesting to see you try to deflect attention away from continuing accusations of double-standards with yet more hysteria and finger-pointing. I hope you have more maturity and sincerity than that.

      Look, the bottom line is this: If your primary concern is to safeguard, support and promote the interests of your “home team”, right or wrong, whether it’s to do with current events, recent history or more distant history…..and whether it’s to do with power or territory (or both), your primary concern is that your home team should be in control and that you are happy for some pretty dubious activities to be undertaken if it’s in the team’s best interests, but not if the tables are turned, even in generally synonymous situations, that’s fine. Just be completely honest about it.

      He doesnt object to this but objects to me quoting Jewish people using the same term for Israel.

      Your quote of some selected Jewish people using the same term for Israel isn’t a reason or an explanation for your own usage of the term, it’s an excuse. I notice you still haven’t answered my previous questions on the matter.

    54. blah — on 8th February, 2009 at 6:27 pm  

      Jai

      “Do you claim that the establishment of West Pakistan as a religiously-affiliated state involved no “ethnic cleansing” of Hindus and Sikhs in that part of the subcontinent (frequently involving extreme violence),”

      This goes back to your error in equating the creation of Pakistan and Israel. Pakistan was created by giving lands that were already majority Muslim over to a new state called Pakistan. There was no inherent need to ethnically cleanse non-Muslims because a Muslim majority already existed.

      Israel was created by giving land that was majority non-Jewish to Jewish people many of whom lived outside the state- thus ethnic cleansing of Arabs was inherently necessary to create a Jewish state.

      ” or that it did not involve the displacement of huge numbers of people belonging to these groups from lands they had inhabited for centuries in many cases and for thousands of years in others, or that (by your own apparent definition of the term) the sheer numbers killed would not constitute a localised “genocide” ?”

      Ethnic cleansing is genocide no matter who it happens to. It would be fair to describe the delieberate ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs as genocide.
      Likewise the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Eastern punjab could be describe as genocide. Yet you focus on the first and ignore the second.

      You even termed Indian Muslims coming to Pakistan as people “arriving” while terming Hindus and Sikhs coming to India as “ethnic cleansing” (or some such term). Your bias is laughable.

      Perhaps I could ask you a question Jai. Do you think Muslims have ever suffered a genocide-if so when? And is there any conflict in the world today involving Muslims that you think Muslims are in the right in?

    55. blah — on 8th February, 2009 at 6:54 pm  

      blah
      Im extremely proud of Muslim rule in India.

      Jai
      Of course you are. Why am I not surprised ?

      blah
      Jai you are pathethic. My comment was a reply to your comment:

      “Feeling a little sensitive and self-conscious about some of the nastier aspects of the subcontinent’s experiences at the hands of some of our more belligerent Muslim friends, are we ?”

      Jai
      “Are you proud of the way it was originally established, and subsequently expanded and enforced ?
      Are you proud of the idea of one group of people forcibly imposing their rule on another, particularly if it involves an imperial system of government ? Not to mention the occasional invasion and conquest of the latter’s territory, massacre, torture of dissidents, destruction of historical buildings and outright mass murder. Not by all Muslim imperial rulers by any means, mind you, but we did have our fair share of, shall we say, colourful characters. There was a world of difference between Akbar (especially in his later years) and Aurangzeb, or Shahjahan and Muhmud of Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori or Qutbuddin.”

      Are you proud of getting your view of Muslim history from Muslim haters? Where is the evidence for your statements? What a warped view you have.
      Are you proud of Hindu rule of India? Or Sikh rule?

      “Muslim imperial rule in the subcontinent certainly did result in a considerable infusion of positive elements into many, many aspects of subcontinental society during the region’s medieval period, and some segments could genuinely be described as being amongst the “golden ages” of the subcontinent’s very long history…..but unless you can truthfully answer “No; these things were deeply regrettable and I am definitely not proud of those events and actions” to the questions I’ve just asked, without any rantings about Hindutva and Zionism or revisionist denials of recorded historical events, it will still raise a major question mark regarding your own objectivity, biases and motivations.”

      Cool look forward to your criticism of Sikh rule and things you are definetly not proud of about it

      “Unless you’re asserting that the Delhi Sultanate followed by the Mughal Empire both established, expanded and enforced their rule in the subcontinent by peaceful, democratic means, with the full support and acquiescence of the various peoples who ended up falling within “their” territory over the centuries. Are you ? ”

      As opposed to the peaceful democratic way Hindu, Sikh or British rule was established ?

      “Look, the bottom line is this: If your primary concern is to safeguard, support and promote the interests of your “home team”, right or wrong, whether it’s to do with current events, recent history or more distant history…..and whether it’s to do with power or territory (or both), your primary concern is that your home team should be in control and that you are happy for some pretty dubious activities to be undertaken if it’s in the team’s best interests, but not if the tables are turned, even in generally synonymous situations, that’s fine. Just be completely honest about it.”

      I am happy to condemn wrong actions commited by Muslims and clearly have done. That is a teaching of our faith. But Im not interested in contributing to hatred of Muslims by such condemnation.

      Who said anything about being “in control” ? – that is your own paranoid anti-Muslim mindset. You see like the BNP/Islamophobes every Muslim as someone who wants to dominate the world.

      So when are you going to condemn wrong action committed by “your team” Jai?

    56. Refresh — on 9th February, 2009 at 2:12 am  

      Does anyone want to discuss Al-Jazeera; Qatar’s dramatic action vis-a-vis Israel; Israeli fear of a free press?

      I believe that was Sid’s intention. Lets at least give him some credit for taking the time to put this piece together by addressing the post.

    57. fug — on 9th February, 2009 at 11:25 am  

      blah,
      are you proud of hideous mistakes made by muslims? do you realise just how much the hideous events in bangladesh during its birth contribute to the further denigration of islam in public discourse their and how muslims with mojo there cant breathe for it? do you realise how humiliating, generationally jarring it was, and how its blood capitalism still runs deep red? ITs probably best you dont continue to redisplay your ignorances, its not very brotherly.

      Go read something like ‘Bengali Language movement to Bangladesh’ by anwar and afia dil (bengali and punjabi couple of sociologist types) to appreciate underlying issues.

      refresh,
      as soon as 71 is invoked, everybody is distracted by that. even in the uk. it is emblematic and it is retarding. its a great distraction technique and personally its hard to resist the urge.

    58. Sid — on 9th February, 2009 at 11:32 am  

      Looks like no one wants to discuss the main point here, which was about Nation State responses to Freedom of Press, which was what I was trying to address here.

      People seem more interested in obfuscating the meaning of genocide whilst denying real instances of genocide, especially if Islamists are implicated in real instances of genocide.

    59. Jai — on 9th February, 2009 at 12:33 pm  

      Refresh,

      I believe that was Sid’s intention. Lets at least give him some credit for taking the time to put this piece together by addressing the post.

      Agreed, but I think Mr Blah’s points need to be addressed first.

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

      Sid,

      Looks like no one wants to discuss the main point here, which was about Nation State responses to Freedom of Press, which was what I was trying to address here.

      Apologies for the tangents; I’ve been trying to make a point to Blah about his own apparent double-standards (and there is definitely a connection to I/P throughout all this). Hopefully the penny will drop sooner or later where Blah’s own attitudes and perspectives are concerned.

    60. Jai — on 9th February, 2009 at 12:34 pm  

      Blah :

      There was no inherent need to ethnically cleanse non-Muslims because a Muslim majority already existed.

      It would be fair to describe the delieberate ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs as genocide.

      Are you aware of the contradiction between your two statements above ?

      There was no inherent need to ethnically cleanse non-Muslims because a Muslim majority already existed.

      Israel was created by giving land that was majority non-Jewish to Jewish people many of whom lived outside the state- thus ethnic cleansing of Arabs was inherently necessary to create a Jewish state.

      So it’s basically about numbers and power, in your view. I get it.

      I hope you realise that my objection is to the notion of anyone establishing a religiously-affiliated state on territory which also has large numbers of members of other groups, if it results in the latter’s displacement and occurs against their wishes, regardless of whether they’re numerically in the minority or the majority. Whether they’re Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or anything else makes no difference to me.

      Yet you focus on the first and ignore the second.

      Because the issue is your own refusal to acknowledge that Muslim groups have also perpetrated atrocities and unprovoked acts of aggression against other groups, whilst screaming with outrage when you perceive Muslims to be (or to have been) on the receiving end of such unjust treatment. Similarly, the focus is on Pakistan rather than India because of the parallels with Israel. “The second”, as you put it, isn’t being ignored, it’s just not of primary relevance to what we’re discussing.

      You even termed Indian Muslims coming to Pakistan as people “arriving” while terming Hindus and Sikhs coming to India as “ethnic cleansing” (or some such term).

      Not quite. Again, the focus was on Pakistan, so it was correct to describe Indian Muslims coming to Pakistan as people “arriving” whereas the situation of Hindus and Sihs could indeed be described as “ethnic cleansing” because they were either driven out or killed outright. In relation to Pakistan, this statement is accurate; in relation to India, large numbers of Muslims in some (certainly not all, by any stretch of the imagination) areas were indeed driven out, killed, or moved to Pakistan because they agreed with the principle behind its founding.

      However, the vast majority of Muslims in post-Partition India were not killed or driven out. Unfortunately you can’t say the same of Pakistan in relation to the Hindus and Sikhs who used to live there.

      Your bias is laughable.

      And yours isn’t ?

    61. Jai — on 9th February, 2009 at 12:39 pm  

      Blah :

      Do you think Muslims have ever suffered a genocide-if so when? And is there any conflict in the world today involving Muslims that you think Muslims are in the right in?

      Let’s flip this around, since we’re talking about historical matters (although there is a connection to certain present-day issues and your own response to them, which some of our more intelligent commenters/lurkers may have already figured out).

      Muslim imperial rule in India, which you have openly claimed to be “very proud of”, by definition included multiple unjustified, frequently unprovoked wars of aggression against existing states and groups in the subcontinent in order to facilitate territorial expansion and an increase in the rulers’ power. Otherwise it would be termed an alliance, not an empire.

      You appear to be in denial of this basic fact. It applies to the very fundamentals of imperialism, whether we’re referring to Muslim rulers or any other groups. Furthermore, you are either in denial or in a state of ignorance of the mass of historical, architectural, and literary information providing detailed evidence of that 800-year period in the subcontinent.

      Do you think that what’s currently happening to the people of Gaza never happened to the inhabitants of besieged cities and kingdoms on the receiving end of Muslim emperors’ territorial expansion ? Are you even aware of what actions by invading Muslim armies triggered Rajput women to start burning themselves to death in the tens of thousands whenever their cities were about to fall to such invasions ? How about the repeated attacks on Chittogarh, resulting in fatalities which you yourself would term “genocides”, especially at the hands of Akbar before he “saw the light” ? Or, taking it further back, exactly how previously Buddhist (and Hindu before that) Afghanistan ended up becoming Muslim (along with why the name “Hindu Kush” exists in the region and exactly why Roma “gypsy” people whose roots are actually in the northwest of the subcontinent ended up scattered westwards) ? Which buildings were destroyed to construct the Qutb complex in Delhi ? How the Ghaznavid and Ghorid Sultanates were established and what happened to Somnath and multiple other targets across northern India ? What happened during the long, dark reign of Aurangzeb ? Exactly what events Sikhs are referring to by the terms “Small Holocaust” and “Great Holocaust” ? What happened to Banda Singh Bahadur and his followers (along with their families and their children ?) The continuing incursions from the northwest during the 18th century after the escalating collapse of the Mughal Empire and prior to the rise of Ranjit Singh ? What happened to the locals during Nadir Shah’s little visit to Delhi ? No ?

      It’s like listening to an English person making smug remarks to black and Asian people about how “proud” he is of the British Empire and that they should “get over it”, and when challenged he starts claiming “the British Raj wasn’t really such a bad thing” and ignoring or denying the realities of what life was like for people on the receiving end of such invasions and subjugation, especially in relation to the methods used to expand and consolidate imperial rule and especially in relation to people who tried to prevent it or fought back.

      The jury’s still out on this, but I really hope that you’re not actually like a German, European, or racist white person who glorifies what he perceives as the “benefits” of the Third Reich (”they brought order and unity”, “Hitler made the trains run on time” etc) whilst either downplaying the morally reprehensible methods by which this was established or by denying it outright (especially the Holocaust), simply because it’s either too much of a blow to his own ego or because it doesn’t fit his preferred worldview and agenda.

    62. Jai — on 9th February, 2009 at 12:45 pm  

      Blah :

      Are you proud of Hindu rule of India?

      Which “Hindu empire” are you referring to ?

      Or Sikh rule?…..Cool look forward to your criticism of Sikh rule and things you are definetly not proud of about it

      Not necessary. Since you appear to be new around here, I guess you need to be told that I’m already on record on multiple previous occasions on PP as stating that Maharajah Ranjit Singh acted in total violation of Khalsa principles when establishing & expanding his empire in the north & northwest.

      If you’re referring to “rule” during the time of the Gurus, I wonder if you’re aware of what the Guruship actually involved, or the concept of “Panj Pyare”. Or, later on, the nature of the Misls themselves.

      As opposed to the peaceful democratic way Hindu, Sikh or British rule was established ?

      I’m opposed to the principle of aggressive imperialism full-stop, whether we’re talking about Muslim rulers, European colonialism, Genghis Khan, Ashoka in his pre-Kalinga days, the Romans or anyone else.

      Do you deny that Muslim imperial rule in the subcontinent involved the conquest and subjugation of absolutely huge numbers of other people ? If not, then why are you “proud” of this fact ? And — most of all — why do you subsequently feel you are in any kind of moral position to start screaming “Zionism” whenever the tables are turned and you believe that Jewish people are perpetrating some form of imperialism, especially when the targets are Muslims ?

      Do you not see the inherent contradiction here ?

      I am happy to condemn wrong actions commited by Muslims and clearly have done. That is a teaching of our faith. But Im not interested in contributing to hatred of Muslims by such condemnation.

      Yet more contradictions. What you’re basically saying is that, in theory, you’re willing to condemn “wrong actions” commited by Muslims (although in reality, at least here on PP, you’ve only done so when the other party was also Muslim — you’ve responded with outright denial or howls of “Hindutva” and “Zionist” when the victims were non-Muslim), but not if doing so will result in the matter reflecting badly on Muslims from the perspective of non-Muslims.

      Interesting.

      You need to realise that the message that’s coming across is the following: Blah is outraged when Muslims are on the receiving end of conquest, subjugation and/or displacement at the hands of non-Muslims, but he is “proud” (or, if politically-expedient, denies it outright) when Muslims are the ones doing the conquering, subjugating and/or displacing of non-Muslims.

      Oh, just one more thing…..

      Seems like you still havent gotten over Muslim rule in India

      You poor thing

      “Seems like you still haven’t gotten over Jewish rule in Palestine. You poor thing”.

      No so funny any more, is it ? Especially when you’re on the receiving end of that kind of smug, patronisingly unapologetic mentality ?



    • Post a comment using the form below

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.