summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
Do as I say, not as I do.
Current Affairs the British Press thread
- Thread starter tsubaki
- Start date
- Status
BigMick
Player Valuation: £20m
The Guardian saw fit to publish an opinion piece by someone from an American-based anti-Israel NGO which argues, in the context of the Netanyahu’s return to power, that, regardless of the right-wing nature of his likely coalition, all Israeli leaders are the same on the Palestinian issue, so it doesn't really matter who is in charge.
This is the key paragraph which supports the claim.
"Beyond the far-right, Jewish Israeli supremacy is normalised across the Israeli political spectrum. The outgoing prime minister, Yair Lapid – a so-called “centrist” – is no exception. In 2013, Lapid told Time Magazine: “You know my father didn’t come here from the ghetto in order to live in a country that is half Arab, half Jewish. He came here to live in a Jewish state.”
It is correct that Lapid uttered those words. However, the quote – which, incidentally, does not indicate ‘supremacist’ views – is taken completely out of context. Here’s the relevant part of the interview:
LAPID: Israelis convinced themselves that there is no use in talking to the Palestinians because they’re not to be trusted. I think they’re wrong. I think the Palestinians are not to be trusted and this exactly why we should talk to them. Because you make peace with foes not with friends…. Interestingly enough, all polls show the mass majority of Israelis say the two-state solution is the only game in town, but is quite comfortable with the fact that nothing happens. I myself think this is irresponsible. I think we don’t want to make the mistake the Israeli left makes time and time again of telling up front what it is they’re willing to give up. But we have to go back to the negotiations table.
TIME: In a sincere way or because that is what the world sort of expects?
LAPID: No, in a sincere way. You know my father didn’t come here from the ghetto in order to live in a country that is half Arab, half Jewish. He came here to live in a Jewish state. And we have 3.3 million Palestinians now between the sea and the eastern border of Israel. If we don’t do something about it, her generation [nods toward a 15-year-old girl at our table] is going to spend her time with six or seven or eight million Palestinians. So doing nothing about it is shortsighted.
Clearly, Lapid’s comments were in the context of expressing support for a two-state solution – a policy he’s supported throughout his political career. He was saying that Jews like his father who survived the Nazi genocide of European Jewry emigrated to Israel in order to live in a Jewish state, and that Israel’s status as the world’s only Jewish state – and the only national refuge for Jews – would be jeopardised if a peace agreement which includes the creation of a Palestinian state isn’t reached.
To contort Lapid’s words in support of peace negotiations and two-states as somehow representing an expression of “Jewish supremacy” is either shamefully dishonest or evidence that the author views support for a Jewish state within any borders as intrinsically “supremacist” and illegitimate.
The author then dismisses Lapid's support for two-states by claiming, "a mere glance at the policy positions of his party, Yesh Atid, on the West Bank reveals what it means by a two-state solution: annexation of the settlement blocs that will result in cutting the West Bank in half, leaving only islands of Palestinian autonomy."
This is again misleading. Yesh Atid supports ending the Israel/Palestine conflict on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative, while ensuring the safety of Israel. On settlements, the answer is again given in the Time interview:
"The majority of Israelis understand that aside from the big blocs of settlements, Gush Etzion, Maale Adiumim and Ariel, we will withdraw eventually."
So that's only three settlements retained - and he adds:
"I think we don’t want to make the mistake the Israeli left makes time and time again of telling up front what it is they’re willing to give up. But we have to go back to the negotiations table."
The author's views are well known. She does not support two-states, believes Israel is illegitimate and has no right to exist, opposes any people-to-people peace-building projects - supported by most western countries - and once accused Israel of committing 'genocide' in an unusual and devious way: "while Israel would not directly kill tens of thousands of Palestinians…it would create the conditions for tens of thousands to die. Any epidemic could finish the job."
The author, a regular contributor to the Guardian, is entitled to her views - they are there to be refuted. It doesn't matter what your view is on the occupation or settlements - the Palestinian right to statehood is irrefutable and there is no need to resort to lies, half-truths or twisting facts. This is a dishonest article that belongs on a propaganda site, not in a national newspaper. It's a shame the Guardian chose to waste valuable space that could have been given to a serious discussion about the potential repercussions for the peace process of a right-wing government in Israel.
This is the key paragraph which supports the claim.
"Beyond the far-right, Jewish Israeli supremacy is normalised across the Israeli political spectrum. The outgoing prime minister, Yair Lapid – a so-called “centrist” – is no exception. In 2013, Lapid told Time Magazine: “You know my father didn’t come here from the ghetto in order to live in a country that is half Arab, half Jewish. He came here to live in a Jewish state.”
It is correct that Lapid uttered those words. However, the quote – which, incidentally, does not indicate ‘supremacist’ views – is taken completely out of context. Here’s the relevant part of the interview:
LAPID: Israelis convinced themselves that there is no use in talking to the Palestinians because they’re not to be trusted. I think they’re wrong. I think the Palestinians are not to be trusted and this exactly why we should talk to them. Because you make peace with foes not with friends…. Interestingly enough, all polls show the mass majority of Israelis say the two-state solution is the only game in town, but is quite comfortable with the fact that nothing happens. I myself think this is irresponsible. I think we don’t want to make the mistake the Israeli left makes time and time again of telling up front what it is they’re willing to give up. But we have to go back to the negotiations table.
TIME: In a sincere way or because that is what the world sort of expects?
LAPID: No, in a sincere way. You know my father didn’t come here from the ghetto in order to live in a country that is half Arab, half Jewish. He came here to live in a Jewish state. And we have 3.3 million Palestinians now between the sea and the eastern border of Israel. If we don’t do something about it, her generation [nods toward a 15-year-old girl at our table] is going to spend her time with six or seven or eight million Palestinians. So doing nothing about it is shortsighted.
Clearly, Lapid’s comments were in the context of expressing support for a two-state solution – a policy he’s supported throughout his political career. He was saying that Jews like his father who survived the Nazi genocide of European Jewry emigrated to Israel in order to live in a Jewish state, and that Israel’s status as the world’s only Jewish state – and the only national refuge for Jews – would be jeopardised if a peace agreement which includes the creation of a Palestinian state isn’t reached.
To contort Lapid’s words in support of peace negotiations and two-states as somehow representing an expression of “Jewish supremacy” is either shamefully dishonest or evidence that the author views support for a Jewish state within any borders as intrinsically “supremacist” and illegitimate.
The author then dismisses Lapid's support for two-states by claiming, "a mere glance at the policy positions of his party, Yesh Atid, on the West Bank reveals what it means by a two-state solution: annexation of the settlement blocs that will result in cutting the West Bank in half, leaving only islands of Palestinian autonomy."
This is again misleading. Yesh Atid supports ending the Israel/Palestine conflict on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative, while ensuring the safety of Israel. On settlements, the answer is again given in the Time interview:
"The majority of Israelis understand that aside from the big blocs of settlements, Gush Etzion, Maale Adiumim and Ariel, we will withdraw eventually."
So that's only three settlements retained - and he adds:
"I think we don’t want to make the mistake the Israeli left makes time and time again of telling up front what it is they’re willing to give up. But we have to go back to the negotiations table."
The author's views are well known. She does not support two-states, believes Israel is illegitimate and has no right to exist, opposes any people-to-people peace-building projects - supported by most western countries - and once accused Israel of committing 'genocide' in an unusual and devious way: "while Israel would not directly kill tens of thousands of Palestinians…it would create the conditions for tens of thousands to die. Any epidemic could finish the job."
The author, a regular contributor to the Guardian, is entitled to her views - they are there to be refuted. It doesn't matter what your view is on the occupation or settlements - the Palestinian right to statehood is irrefutable and there is no need to resort to lies, half-truths or twisting facts. This is a dishonest article that belongs on a propaganda site, not in a national newspaper. It's a shame the Guardian chose to waste valuable space that could have been given to a serious discussion about the potential repercussions for the peace process of a right-wing government in Israel.
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
Par for the course.
Not press but still, client journalism 101. Dave Ward done well not to lose it.
what an absolute, clueless, ignorant arsehole that presenter was, sorry for the language, but what that presenter needs is to be sacked and replaced by a new presenter on 20 or 30% less pay...oh wait a minute. He might as well have been a director with the Post Office and this is the BBC..
Rupert Murdoch pays £11,000 for Boris Johnson to visit
The media tycoon paid for flights and accommodation for the former PM to visit Montana last month.
www.bbc.co.uk
I wonder who he took along on 'this' jolly...
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
Well done that man.
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
lol
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
Nice juxtaposition : hope they enjoyed their 10 courses and got merrily drunk at our expense.
Erm, how many lumps does he think he can be sliced into?
The mainstream media should be ashamed of themselves. Attacking strike action while in the same breath running pieces on the cost of living. What are the people supposed to do? We sleep walked into allowing the government to remove our ability to fight injustice over pay and working conditions while being distracted by Netflix and consumerism. There will be a tipping point one day and strike action will seem like child’s play. Either we make a stand now and even then people will still be worse off than they should be or we wait until there is rioting and revolution. Sadly we can’t make decisions anymore for the future. Gone are the days of planting trees so our descendants can sit in the shade. Short termism will see our grandchildren suffer far more than we suffer now. And all the while a minority will sit in ivory towers laughing.
I love Mick Lynch, got Brexit wrong but we all make mistakes.Nice juxtaposition : hope they enjoyed their 10 courses and got merrily drunk at our expense.
- Status