From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Want facts?  "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?  The Alarming Facts"
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 23:04:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.170407.25088@anasaz> scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul7.234932.7689@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>>Scott Gibson seems to have missed the point that I was making, that
>>Israel has been criticized in recent years remarkably out of proportion
>>to what Israel is actually accused of having done.
>
>I missed no point at all.  I understand, first, that Israel has been 
>subjected to more criticism than Israel's neighbors; and second, that
>you believe this is an unfair treatment of Israel.  I agree, in 
>general, that this does not show a balanced treatment of Israel and
>her neighbors.

Thank you.

>This isn't where we have a dispute, Jake.  Where we part ways, is that
>_you_ believe that any criticism of Israel can be waved away by referring
>to these facts, while _I_ believe that it is dishonest to reject valid
>criticism in this fashion.

I don't reject valid criticism.  However, almost the entirety of recent
criticism of Israel has been completely out of proportion to the misdeeds.
It is this shocking lack of proportion that I find detestable and 
injuriously unfair.

>>Yes.  The alternative punishments, like public hanging, beheading
>>and death by firing squad are not available in Israel though they 
>>are all common events in surrounding Arab countries.
>
>The issue is not the type of punishment involved (though that serves
>to either mitigate or enhance the moral outrage, depending upon which
>example you examine).  The issue is that the punishment is meted out
>without regard to guilt, and without regard to due process.

Not so.  Had the Intifada been described as the rioting or civil war 
that it actually is, everything would look different.  

In the first year of the Intifada, when Arabs in Israel threw fire-bombs 
and bricks at Israeli police and soldiers, these were commonly described 
in the media as "demonstrations".  It wasn't until later that they were 
called the riots that they actually were.

Had the Initifada been portrayed as the rioting civil war that it 
actually is, like in Lebanon or Bosnia, the media would have produced
many stories about how Israeli stores and factories, restaurants
and nightclubs are still operating even under these extreme conditions.
Instead, this typical Middle-Eastern violence is taken as a norm 
and Israel is being criticized for dealing with it harshly.

Under the circumstances, Israel has gone a very long way to preserving
"due process", much more than was visible in, say, recent riots in 
Los Angeles.  I doubt that American justice would have improved after
4 years of rioting, instead of the 4 days that actually ensued.

Your charge of meting out punishment without regard to guilt or
due process is grossly exaggerated, if not completely invalid.

And, as usual, it is ignoring the context of the circumstances.

>>Yes.  While "Intifada" gives this uprising a slightly exotic and 
>>romantic air, it is actually a civil war in which part of the population
>>has resorted to frequent bombings, shootings and barbaric axe-hackings
>>of civilians on city streets and country roads.
>
>The issue is not that Israeli forces have killed Arabs actually in
>the act of performing such heinous deeds, but rather that Israeli
>forces have, from time to time, wantonly rained destruction down on
>third parties, some of whom cannot be considered anything but
>innocent of the crimes you mention.

War is a cruel, painful, ugly, brutal business.  I never said that 
I liked it.  When you consider the Intifada in Israel in similar 
terms to the Lebanese or Serbian conflicts, you will see that 
innocents suffer occassinally.  However, this is inconsistent
with your description of Israel "wantonly rain[ing] destruction 
down on third parties".

>>Yes.  If you truly have a problem with imprisoning people for rioting,
>>then there is no point in debating with you any longer.  I sincerely
>>hope this isn't the case.
>
>Nope.  I have a problem with your definition of "riot."  While I
>would freely admit that some of those jailed were, in fact, rioting,
>it is equally clear that many have been jailed because someone thought
>they had been, or would be, rioting.  Due process, again.

What is it that makes it "equally clear" to you that the innocent
have been rounded up together with the guilty?  Your persistent
certainty about Israeli sins, without presenting evidence or debating
facts, has become a hallmark of your postings.

Scott, what disturbs me and other posters here is your free 
willingness to accuse Israel of awful things that simply haven't 
happened.  I can understand your desire for evenhandedness but 
shooting at everyone doesn't make you balanced and fair.

>>I have done so because the criticism of Israel in recent years has 
>>been hysterically hyocritical.  Obviously, Israel is not perfect,
>>but both the criticism and the critics of Israel have been without
>>credibility.
>
>Hysterical?  I?

Not only has much of the media criticism of Israel been hysterical,
but your parrotting of it in postings has been, too.

>>I disapprove strongly with Israel's socialist economic policies
>>which the Bush administration seems intent on preserving.  Moving
>>to a more market-oriented economy, like the East-bloc is now doing,
>>is vital.  Continued kowtowing to union demands cripples the Israeli
>>economy making it dependent on continued US aid - which is the way 
>>Bush wants it.
>
>Nice try.  How about choosing one example of Israely behaviour toward
>Palestinians with which you disagree?

Okay, I disagree with Mayor Kollek's policy of PREVENTING a significant
police presence in Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, so as not to 
incite the residents.  This policy has led to many attacks and the 
deaths of Jews as well as Arabs.  Americans are quite familiar with
this approach; we call it Political Correctness and are already 
learning about the injustices that it can lead to.

>>Secondly, I have now responded to all of your comments.  What is your 
>>next problem?
>
>That you haven't responded to any of them with any integrity.

As you have said in another posting, "Feh!"

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.