Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Is an Israeli life really more important than a Palestinian's?

L'autrice coglie il punto.  E' già orribile che i cittadini israeliani, 
salvo una esigua minoranza, tollerino senza protestare che il loro paese 
da oltre 40 anni privi dei diritti umani fondamentali circa 3 milioni di 
persone, che le tenga in uno stato di minorità indifferente ai loro 
diritti;
che conviva senza problemi con la segregazione di Gaza, voluta dal suo 
governo e attuata dalle sue forze armate;
che  mostrino di essere d'accordo col loro primo ministro quando questo 
sostiene che salvare una vita *ebraica* è come salvare un mondo.
Ma che la lobby "sionista" stia portando il resto del mondo a pensare 
allo stesso modo, ad abituarsi al razzismo, a partecipare ai riti che 
celebrano la superiorità del valore di una vita sulle altre, questo è 
grottesco e intollerabile.
 
------------------------------------------------
Is an Israeli life really more important than a Palestinian's?
 
Deborah Orr
guardian.co.uk
, Wednesday 19 October 2011 20.00 BST
 
It's quite something, the prisoner swap between Hamas and the Israeli 
government that returns Gilad Shalit to his family, and more than 1,000 
Palestinian prisoners to theirs. The deal is widely viewed as a victory 
for Hamas, the radical Islamist group that gained power in Gaza after 
years of frustration at the intractability of the "peace process". 
Conversely, it is being seen by some as a sign of weakness in Israel's 
rightwing prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
 
All this, I fear, is simply an indication of how inured the world has 
become to the obscene idea that Israeli lives are more important than 
Palestinian lives. Netanyahu argues that he acted because he values 
Shalit's life so greatly.
 
Yet who is surprised really, to learn that Netanyahu sees one Israeli's 
freedom as a fair exchange for the freedom of so many Palestinians? 
Likewise, Hamas wished to use their human bargaining chip to gain 
release for as many Palestinians as they could. They don't have much to 
bargain with.
 
At the same time, however, there is something abject in their eagerness 
to accept a transfer that tacitly acknowledges what so many Zionists 
believe – that the lives of the chosen are of hugely greater consequence 
than those of their unfortunate neighbours.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/19/israeli-lives-more-important-palestinian
 
-- 
Sostieni Rete ECO
 
http://rete-eco.it/it/sostienici.html
 
 

 Is an Israeli life really more important than a Palestinian's?
 
Tra il pirla antisemita autoctono e quella del Guardian, hanno 
dimenticato che scambiare un migliaio di killer con un ostaggio è stata 
la richiesta di Hamas.
 
Come rosicata per la liberazione di Shalit non è male.
 
 
-- 
Dead men may not talk, but they also don't lie.  [Chuck Hawks]


wrote:

Deborah Orr, nella galleria delle schifezze del Guardian, fa comunque
la sua porca figura
http://cifwatch.com/2010/06/13/guardian-israel-obsession-reaches-new-heights-flotilla-stats/
 

Il 20/10/11 00:19, נחום ha scritto:

Secondo me non può competere col nostro pirla. Anche perché lui elabora 
più autonomamente.


 più autonomamente.
 
c'e' un interessante commento di Jeffrey Goldberg a questa ennesima
porcheria del Guardian
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/the-guardians-almost-comical-nastiness/247073/
 
 
A few thoughts, and questions:
1) She's got to be kidding.
2) Assuming Ms. Orr is not kidding, how is it possibly Israel's fault
that Hamas demanded the release of 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in
exchange for Gilad Shalit? Isn't this a question for Hamas?
3) Is the prime minister of Israel not supposed to value Israeli life?
Asked another way: Is the British prime minister not supposed to do
whatever he can to help one of his soldiers? Have I missed something
about the nature of the relationship between the British prime
minister and his citizens?
4) "Chosen"? Really? Does Ms. Orr understand Jewish theology? (This is
a rhetorical question). "Chosenness" in Jewish theology actually means
"burdened," as in, Jews are burdened by their faith with special
responsibilities to carry out what Judaism understands to be God's
wishes. Chosenness does not mean "exclusive" or "more equal than
others." It never has, except to anti-Semites. Christians believe they
are in possession of the final word of God, as do Muslims. This belief
fosters a feeling of theological superiority. Does this make
Christians and Muslims "chosen" as well? Or is the term "chosenness"
only a weapon for use against Jews? (This, too, is a rhetorical
question).
5) A question for the Guardian: Shouldn't your editors do a better job
of masking prejudice on your website?
 
a cui segue questo interessante passaggio di CAMERA
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/10/an_answer_to_jeffrey_goldbergs.html
 
 
The piece he's talking about, by Deborah Orr, slams Netanyahu, and
Israel, and Zionists, and implicitly Jews, for trading over a thousand
prisoners for Gilad Shalit. Why? Because, Orr argues, it is evidence
that those guilty parties believe the "obscene idea that Israeli lives
are more important than Palestinian lives." Later in the piece, she
substitutes "the lives of the chosen" for her earlier reference to
"Israeli lives."
 
Hamas's hard-line negotiating position is proof of "Zionist" racism?
What can one really say about an idea so obviously shaped by blind
hatred rather than rationality? It is, in Goldberg's words, "almost-
comical nastiness."
 
So turning back to his question: Shouldn't Guardian editors do a
better job at masking prejudice?
 
No. The Zeitgeist that produces Orr's piece is the same one that
colors the newspaper's distorted treatment of Israel in general, and
its better for people know it.
 
Modern haters tend to realize that masked prejudice has more power to
influence than the unmasked variety. And if an observer tries to
remove the mask, or even just tries to rebut a hateful slur, they're
frequently attacked for "using the anti-Semitism card." Better, then,
for the hater to remove his/her own mask. If Guardian editors want to
make their anti-Israel bigotry more apparent, let them. Hopefully the
reasonable public will take note.
 

 porcheria del Guardian
 
il giornale che pubblica gli editoriali antisauditi del rabbino
omonimo del tizio che citi? Free speech, abituati.
Oppure torna in Israele, dove i fascisti ammazzano i PM che vogliono
davvero la pace, ne profanano la tomba (
http://www3.lastampa.it/esteri/
 
sezioni/articolo/lstp/424798), e tirano bombe a chi non si allinea.
http://it.narkive.com/2008/9/28/6436783-bidussa-sullattentato-a-sternhell.html