Lauren Booth, sister-in-law of former British prime minister Tony Blair, said that the "concentration camp" of Gaza received less media attention than Darfur.
Has Gaza in fact received less attention? Not just less media attention, but less attention overall?
An internet search for 'Darfur,' shows 16,300,000 results.
[Deaths in Darfur: nearly half a million over the past five years.]
An internet search for 'Gaza,' shows 39,400,000 results.
[Conflict deaths in Gaza: 7007 since 2001.]
Note: The idea for comparing death tolls was taken from an Arutz Sheva article. It dramatically highlights the disparity. There is relevance, and then there is 'relevance'. I got the idea for internet searches from the same article.
Further searches showed a similar pattern:
5,330,000 results for 'Darfur UN'.
9,840,000 results for 'Gaza UN'.
603,000 results for 'AFP Darfur'.
1,380,000 results for 'AFP Gaza'.
1,940,000 results for 'BBC Darfur'.
3,040,000 results for 'BBC Gaza'.
1,350,000 results for 'Reuters Darfur'.
2,790,000 results for 'Reuters Gaza'.
387,000 results for 'Al Jazeera Darfur'.
1,020,000 results for 'Al Jazeera Gaza'.
32,300 results for 'Ha'aretz Darfur'.
361,000 results for 'Ha'aretz Gaza'.
3,690 results for 'Algemeen Dagblad Darfur'.
5,260 results for 'Algemeen Dagblad Gaza'.
19,100 results for 'Volkskrant Darfur'
31,800 for 'Volkskrant Gaza'.
1,050,000 results for 'Guardian Darfur'.
2,040,000 results for 'Guardian Gaza'.
1,610,000 results for 'New York Times Darfur'.
2,800,000 results for 'New York Times Gaza'.
There are two logical conclusions.
The first one is that Lauren Booth is an ignorant and biased woman who neither knows nor cares about the truth. The second one is that each Gazan is worth far, far more than at least fifty Sudanese in the eyes of the world.
One might also think that the killing of Gazans is frowned upon, and the deaths of Sudanese positively welcomed.
But it is probably only people like Lauren Booth who incline that way.
My own personal conclusions are that the world cares too little about Darfur, and that Lauren Booth and her type are evil and vicious.
I would be keen to hear from anyone who knows ms. Booth whether that latter conclusion matches their perception.
--------------------------------
NOTE:
This article is crossposted here:
http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2008/09/lauren-booth-weeps-over-gaza-not-over.html
I compared the figures for the fatalities in Darfur and Gaza in several places: B'Tselem, The United Nations, various Palestinian and activist websites, etcetera.
The figure for Gaza is based on B'Tselem. I did not include Palestinians killed by other Palestinians, such as the victims of political assassinations by the factions, targeted killings by gangsters such as the Dogmush clan, murdered kidnap victims, or poisonings.
Showing posts with label criticism of Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criticism of Israel. Show all posts
Friday, September 19, 2008
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Respectfully Submitted for Your Review
One of the pro-Israel lists to which I subscribe forwarded a message from a monitored anti-Israel list, which stated as follows:
"Marcy Winograd is the co-founder of the LA Jews for Peace collectiveand a long-time anti-war activist in Los Angeles . Inspired by author Joel Kovel's book Overcoming Zionism, she is interested in assembling and publishing an anthology entitled: From Zionism to Humanism:Personal Stories of Jews Who Dare to Speak Out. If you know of Jews who might be interested in contributing to her anthology, please encourage them to submit their story to Marcy at Winogradcoach@aol.com."
(Note the implicit slur that Zionism, self-determination for the Jewish people in our homeland, is incompatible with humanism. I wonder how she feels about threatening to flog people for naming a teddy bear Mohammed? Also, it's interesting that she was inspired by the Kovel book. This book, distributed by the University of Michigan via a contract with UK-based Pluto Press, has brought much criticism to the university for distributing it, since it is filled with anti-Israel propaganda and doesn't deserve the imprimatur of a prestigious university. It operates from the premise that the Jewish state should not exist at all. You can read a recent column in the Jerusalem Post about the book here.)
It was suggested that those of us on the pro-Israel side might want to submit our stories as well.
Here's mine. If I hear back from Ms Winograd, I will let you know; I'm not holding my breath. Readers may want to submit their own stories about speaking out for Israel as well.
In the interests of full editorial disclosure: the first sentence below is completely false. I only wrote it to get her to start reading it; I've been an Israel advocate for years. When I was in college, I posted (on my dormitory door-- we didn't HAVE blogs or listserves then) Chaim Herzog's speech at the UN condemning the General Assembly for its "Zionism is Racism" resolution. Those words apply to Ms Winograd today no less than they applied to the "diplomats" who voted for that piece of verbal sewage.
"While I had always been politically inclined, Israel was never really the focus of activity for me. I became involved while in medical school with Physicians for Social Responsibility and in my professional career as a pediatrician was working on legislative issues involving child health. Things were always happening in Israel but they didn't affect me here.
Then came the outbreak of the second Intifada in 2000 and the war in Iraq in 2003. Suddenly, the situation in Israel seemed to be relevant here in the Bay Area, since the anti-war marches and rallies seemed filled with not only condemnations of Israel but outright support of terrorist acts against Israeli civilians. Why was all this happening? Then I realized that the answer really came down to racism--
Israel was being accused of being a racist state in that it was established as a Jewish state, and those who were calling for its replacement by a "binational" state (which would quickly become another Arab state by demographics) felt that this would resolve a fundamental wrong in the world.
After reading and hearing so much of what these anti-Zionists had to say, I realized that they were partially right-- there is a problem of racism as it pertains to Israel. But the problem was staring those protesters right in the mirror! Racism was inherent in their attitudes towards Israel.
Why do I say this? Consider that Israel is singled out for condemnation when crimes being ignored include the genocide in Darfur, the human trafficking and oppression of women in Saudi Arabia, the religious repression of Christians throughout the Arab world, and the elimination of the culture and history of the Tibetans by the Chinese. There's also the singling out of the only Jewish state as somehow racist in a world with 23 members of the Arab League and 57 members of the Islamic Conference (every one of which declares itself to be an Islamic state), but where only the Jewish people are told that we are not entitled to self-determination. For that matter, Israelis were accused of having stolen land from "indigenous" Palestinians-- by those living on land that belonged to the Miwok Indians, on which Europeans never even set foot until the 18th century! My own heritage stems much more from the Land of Israel than it does from San Francisco, yet my presence here is unchallenged by those who would accept that I am a legitimate target should I decide to live in Israel.
But even more, there is a subtler form of racism against the Palestinians-- the racism of diminished expectations: the racism that refuses to hold them to standards of behavior such as not blowing up women and children in busses and restaurants then publicly celebrating it; the racism that gives them a pass for indoctrinating children into hatred; the racism that says that it's OK for Arabs to have exclusionary states that discriminate against other religions, other ethnic groups, and even their own women; the racism that says that because they have darker skin that they must be right.
So I do speak out-- I stand up for Israel as a Jewish state against those who welcome its destruction. Is Israel a perfect country? Of course not; I haven't found that country yet. Does that validate the thugocracy of Arafat, the Taliban-like rule of Hamas, rockets landing on Sderot? Does that validate the hysterical anti-Zionist rhetoric in this country, which is frequently accompanied by anti-Semitic imagery not usually seen in public except in Arab countries? No. And that's why I speak out."
"Marcy Winograd is the co-founder of the LA Jews for Peace collectiveand a long-time anti-war activist in Los Angeles . Inspired by author Joel Kovel's book Overcoming Zionism, she is interested in assembling and publishing an anthology entitled: From Zionism to Humanism:Personal Stories of Jews Who Dare to Speak Out. If you know of Jews who might be interested in contributing to her anthology, please encourage them to submit their story to Marcy at Winogradcoach@aol.com."
(Note the implicit slur that Zionism, self-determination for the Jewish people in our homeland, is incompatible with humanism. I wonder how she feels about threatening to flog people for naming a teddy bear Mohammed? Also, it's interesting that she was inspired by the Kovel book. This book, distributed by the University of Michigan via a contract with UK-based Pluto Press, has brought much criticism to the university for distributing it, since it is filled with anti-Israel propaganda and doesn't deserve the imprimatur of a prestigious university. It operates from the premise that the Jewish state should not exist at all. You can read a recent column in the Jerusalem Post about the book here.)
It was suggested that those of us on the pro-Israel side might want to submit our stories as well.
Here's mine. If I hear back from Ms Winograd, I will let you know; I'm not holding my breath. Readers may want to submit their own stories about speaking out for Israel as well.
In the interests of full editorial disclosure: the first sentence below is completely false. I only wrote it to get her to start reading it; I've been an Israel advocate for years. When I was in college, I posted (on my dormitory door-- we didn't HAVE blogs or listserves then) Chaim Herzog's speech at the UN condemning the General Assembly for its "Zionism is Racism" resolution. Those words apply to Ms Winograd today no less than they applied to the "diplomats" who voted for that piece of verbal sewage.
"While I had always been politically inclined, Israel was never really the focus of activity for me. I became involved while in medical school with Physicians for Social Responsibility and in my professional career as a pediatrician was working on legislative issues involving child health. Things were always happening in Israel but they didn't affect me here.
Then came the outbreak of the second Intifada in 2000 and the war in Iraq in 2003. Suddenly, the situation in Israel seemed to be relevant here in the Bay Area, since the anti-war marches and rallies seemed filled with not only condemnations of Israel but outright support of terrorist acts against Israeli civilians. Why was all this happening? Then I realized that the answer really came down to racism--
Israel was being accused of being a racist state in that it was established as a Jewish state, and those who were calling for its replacement by a "binational" state (which would quickly become another Arab state by demographics) felt that this would resolve a fundamental wrong in the world.
After reading and hearing so much of what these anti-Zionists had to say, I realized that they were partially right-- there is a problem of racism as it pertains to Israel. But the problem was staring those protesters right in the mirror! Racism was inherent in their attitudes towards Israel.
Why do I say this? Consider that Israel is singled out for condemnation when crimes being ignored include the genocide in Darfur, the human trafficking and oppression of women in Saudi Arabia, the religious repression of Christians throughout the Arab world, and the elimination of the culture and history of the Tibetans by the Chinese. There's also the singling out of the only Jewish state as somehow racist in a world with 23 members of the Arab League and 57 members of the Islamic Conference (every one of which declares itself to be an Islamic state), but where only the Jewish people are told that we are not entitled to self-determination. For that matter, Israelis were accused of having stolen land from "indigenous" Palestinians-- by those living on land that belonged to the Miwok Indians, on which Europeans never even set foot until the 18th century! My own heritage stems much more from the Land of Israel than it does from San Francisco, yet my presence here is unchallenged by those who would accept that I am a legitimate target should I decide to live in Israel.
But even more, there is a subtler form of racism against the Palestinians-- the racism of diminished expectations: the racism that refuses to hold them to standards of behavior such as not blowing up women and children in busses and restaurants then publicly celebrating it; the racism that gives them a pass for indoctrinating children into hatred; the racism that says that it's OK for Arabs to have exclusionary states that discriminate against other religions, other ethnic groups, and even their own women; the racism that says that because they have darker skin that they must be right.
So I do speak out-- I stand up for Israel as a Jewish state against those who welcome its destruction. Is Israel a perfect country? Of course not; I haven't found that country yet. Does that validate the thugocracy of Arafat, the Taliban-like rule of Hamas, rockets landing on Sderot? Does that validate the hysterical anti-Zionist rhetoric in this country, which is frequently accompanied by anti-Semitic imagery not usually seen in public except in Arab countries? No. And that's why I speak out."
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Big Lies Part 1-- A "Jewish State" Provides Unique Ethnic Preference and Therefore Is Illegitimate
Here at BlueTruth, as many other blogs and organizations do, we advocate on behalf of the simple proposition that the Jews (like any other people who share a common heritage, history and ties to a particular piece of land) are entitled to a country of their own. Those who do so often confront various lies being propagated about Israel. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War, you will hear more of them. This will be the first in a series of posts that will analyze and refute them. Much of the basic ground is covered in several excellent resources which are essential reading for those who want to know the facts around the birth of modern Zionism and the establishment of the state of Israel: Alan Dershowitz' The Case for Israel and two pamphlets by Mitchell Bard that are available online: Myths and Facts and On One Foot.
The arguments made 40, 30, or even 20 years ago said that Israel should allow the Palestinians to have a state in the territories conquered in that June 1967 war. Now, of course, with the international community (including Israel) having agreed with that concept (though not on borders, as well as other minor details such as security for 7 million Israelis in the face of such a state controlled by radical Islamist jihadis), the anti-Israel groups have revealed what was undoubtedly their true goal all along-- the dismantlement of Israel as a Jewish state. One of the claims made to justify this is that Israel is a racist/apartheid state and that the primacy given to Jews and to Judaism is prima facie unacceptable and must be eliminated. Reading those arguments, one would think that no other country in the world provides any type of differential treatment to members of its own ethnicity.
Of course, we would not condone not granting to members of minority groups such basics as voting rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Israel, of course, does grant these. The Freedom House annual report on political and civil liberties around the world ranks Israel as "free", with a ranking of 1 (highest) for political rights and 2 for civil liberties. (The PA , "partially free", manages a 4 for political rights; civil liberties are at 6 [lowest is 7]. That of course doesn't factor in the recent threat to one's political rights or civil liberties of being shot dead for belonging to the wrong militia or being kidnapped for being a journalist. They probably already took into account other risky behaviors in the PA such as being a Christian or being a young woman who "dishonors" her family by being seen with an unrelated male in public).
But I digress. The main right being challenged is Israel's Law of Return, which gives the right of immigration to anyone with one Jewish grandparent or who has converted to Judaism. From reading anti-Israel screeds, one would never know that immigration preferences are quite common in the world today. The legal term for this right is lex sanguinis. Countries that provide such preferences include Armenia (another country with a widespread diaspora), China, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Poland, Romania, Russia and Spain. That covers a pretty fair-sized chunk of the world's population right there. Especially given that none of these countries (except Armenia) can document any history of genocidal persecution in its diaspora similar to what the Jewish people have experienced, why is only Israel singled out as if this is unique? One possible answer can be found in this landmark article by Natan Sharansky.
The arguments made 40, 30, or even 20 years ago said that Israel should allow the Palestinians to have a state in the territories conquered in that June 1967 war. Now, of course, with the international community (including Israel) having agreed with that concept (though not on borders, as well as other minor details such as security for 7 million Israelis in the face of such a state controlled by radical Islamist jihadis), the anti-Israel groups have revealed what was undoubtedly their true goal all along-- the dismantlement of Israel as a Jewish state. One of the claims made to justify this is that Israel is a racist/apartheid state and that the primacy given to Jews and to Judaism is prima facie unacceptable and must be eliminated. Reading those arguments, one would think that no other country in the world provides any type of differential treatment to members of its own ethnicity.
Of course, we would not condone not granting to members of minority groups such basics as voting rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Israel, of course, does grant these. The Freedom House annual report on political and civil liberties around the world ranks Israel as "free", with a ranking of 1 (highest) for political rights and 2 for civil liberties. (The PA , "partially free", manages a 4 for political rights; civil liberties are at 6 [lowest is 7]. That of course doesn't factor in the recent threat to one's political rights or civil liberties of being shot dead for belonging to the wrong militia or being kidnapped for being a journalist. They probably already took into account other risky behaviors in the PA such as being a Christian or being a young woman who "dishonors" her family by being seen with an unrelated male in public).
But I digress. The main right being challenged is Israel's Law of Return, which gives the right of immigration to anyone with one Jewish grandparent or who has converted to Judaism. From reading anti-Israel screeds, one would never know that immigration preferences are quite common in the world today. The legal term for this right is lex sanguinis. Countries that provide such preferences include Armenia (another country with a widespread diaspora), China, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Poland, Romania, Russia and Spain. That covers a pretty fair-sized chunk of the world's population right there. Especially given that none of these countries (except Armenia) can document any history of genocidal persecution in its diaspora similar to what the Jewish people have experienced, why is only Israel singled out as if this is unique? One possible answer can be found in this landmark article by Natan Sharansky.
We also hear that the flag and the national anthem must also be changed to not show any preference to Jews and Judaism. As far as flags, how about this salient fact:
The flag of Turkey, which was the flag of the Ottoman Empire, has been an inspiration for the flag designs of many other Muslim nations. During the time of the Ottomans the crescent began to be associated with Islam and this is reflected on the flags of Algeria, Azerbaijan, Comoros, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Tunisia, and of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags)
Also, the following countries feature a different religious symbol, the Christian cross, in their flags:
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Greece, Tonga.
Once again, only Israel is pilloried for using the symbol of the Jewish people on its flag.
And for national anthems, here are slections from the national anthems of a few other countries that somehow are not vilified as “racist”–
Saudi Arabia:Hasten to glory and supremacy!Glorify the Creator of the heavensAnd raise the green, fluttering flag,Carrying the emblem of Light!Repeat - God is greatest!O my country,My country, may you always live,The glory of all Muslims!Long live the King,For the flag and the country!
Thailand (I'm not criticizing Thailand here, but I do suspect that not 100% of the citizens of Thailand are ethnic Thais…):
Thailand unites its people with flesh and blood.
land of Thailand belongs to the Thais.....
The Czech anthem includes the lines "Where is my home? Where is my home?
If, in a heavenly land, you have met
Tender souls in agile frames,
Of clear mind, vigorous and prospering,
And with a strength that frustrates all defiance,
That is the glorious race of Czechs,
Among Czechs (is) my home!"
The mention of the Jewish soul's hope to become a nation in its own land isn't so different, is it? Not really-- unless you've got an underlying agenda.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Do the progressive ZIonist groups EVER Stand Up for Israel? (sadly, no)
from ZioNation - Progressive Zionism and Israel Web Log
Recently, more and more voices have been raised in the American Jewish community, expressing dissatisfaction with current representation of the Jewish community in Zionist institutions and institutions that represent Jewish views on Israel........ The sad truth however, is that the situation reflects the relative contributions of the different communities to the defense of Israel and Zionism. Groups like Ameinu, UPZ and Brit Tzedek VeShalom are entitled to protest the occupation and air their disagreements about with Israeli policies. However, if they want to earn a central place in determining Zionist policies in the USA and the future of Israeli society, they have to be there for Israel when it comes to clear-cut vital issues such as defense of Israel on campus against racists like Columbia Professor Joseph Massad, ISM boycott initiatives, emergency funds for Israel, Aliya (immigration) programs and delegitimization of Israel. These issues have nothing to do with the occupation or democracy in Israel and should not be divisive.
Read the full post here.
Recently, more and more voices have been raised in the American Jewish community, expressing dissatisfaction with current representation of the Jewish community in Zionist institutions and institutions that represent Jewish views on Israel........ The sad truth however, is that the situation reflects the relative contributions of the different communities to the defense of Israel and Zionism. Groups like Ameinu, UPZ and Brit Tzedek VeShalom are entitled to protest the occupation and air their disagreements about with Israeli policies. However, if they want to earn a central place in determining Zionist policies in the USA and the future of Israeli society, they have to be there for Israel when it comes to clear-cut vital issues such as defense of Israel on campus against racists like Columbia Professor Joseph Massad, ISM boycott initiatives, emergency funds for Israel, Aliya (immigration) programs and delegitimization of Israel. These issues have nothing to do with the occupation or democracy in Israel and should not be divisive.
Read the full post here.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Crossing the Line: Portrayals of Israelis as Nazis
Manfred Gerstenfeld has written a detailed report on the phenomenon of "Holocaust Inversion", the propaganda that the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis is comparable to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis. Of course, to anyone who has studied history, this comparison is so outrageous that the only excuses for it are either sheer ignorance (all too common these days) or deep-seated intractible malice against Jews (also, unfortunately, all too common these days). Gerstenfeld researches this phenomenon and shows its roots--especially in the Arab world.
Those who accept this type of propaganda from their anti-Israel fellow travelers should pay very close attention to this article.
Before posting comments, please note: in no way does BlueTruth claim that any criticism of Israeli policies is anti-Semitic. Read Gerstenfeld's article here to find out when such criticism DOES cross the line.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=0&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=381&PID=0&IID=1526&TTL=Holocaust_Inversion:_The_Portraying_of_Israel_and_Jews_as_Nazis
Those who accept this type of propaganda from their anti-Israel fellow travelers should pay very close attention to this article.
Before posting comments, please note: in no way does BlueTruth claim that any criticism of Israeli policies is anti-Semitic. Read Gerstenfeld's article here to find out when such criticism DOES cross the line.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=0&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=381&PID=0&IID=1526&TTL=Holocaust_Inversion:_The_Portraying_of_Israel_and_Jews_as_Nazis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
