ok it's Iraq but it's interesting
-
Here is a link to a blog put up by Morgan on a different Blog. There are a
number of entries that tie more to your topic than theirs. Enjoy.
15 years ago
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Netanyahu Video Statement on Gaza, Dec 2008
In Benyamin Netanyahu’s statement on Gaza, he makes a direct appeal to his international audience. Placing the challenges that Israel faces in terms foreigners can relate to, he simplifies the decisions made regarding Gaza. Using the scale of towns and neighborhoods, viewers can connect with the faces and people that are victims to these war crimes on their sovereign home. Posing the question, “what’s a country to do?” we are asked how we, “the international community”, would respond to the threats that he describes. Protecting its citizens through precise attacks, Iraq is taking the “necessary” action that any government would do to responsibly protect its citizens. The course that Israel has taken in the face of rocket attacks fired out of Gaza would be the one that any responsible government would.
His key verb is pinpoint, pinpoint, pinpoint, not strike or attack. Precision makes the action against Hamas justified, as he positions himself internationally as the voice (already replacing the discredited Olmert before he leaves office) of Israel’s measured, patient response to thousands of missiles. As the yet-to-be elected prime minister of Israel, in this video he aligns the status of his country with his desired observers. The legitimacy of his office (with him in it) and his state are key points here. Behind a desk flanked by the Israeli flag and signs of achievement and academia, Netanyahu’s message builds on and amplifies the status of his position. Delivering his statement in flawless English, he is a relatable, familiar, white figure of authority. This is something that a Hamas leader, like Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, although dressed in classic western political wear, isn’t ever granted from the mass American audience.
As he frames the military action against Gaza, Netanyahu makes certain that British and American audiences can connect with a familiar rhetoric that they heard from their immediate past leaders. As the Blair and Bush have, Netanyahu places this conflict as a battle for “peace and decency.” The security of its citizens, the future of the region, and peace for the world are goals that most governments would support. He almost says “We’ve tried diplomacy” when he reminds the viewers that Israel has been talking to “the Hamas” (putting the article “the” before Hamas begs it to be followed by “terrorists” or another pejorative noun). His message is crafted carefully and palatably. Garnering legitimacy for himself and the military actions that he campaigned on and wishes to extend is a clear goal for Netanyahu as he enters the office of prime minister. Whether he will be able to direct international opinion towards his geopolitical bent that sees Iran and Hamas as inextricably linked terrorist brethren and a economic “development”-driven one state solution as the “just” direction for the region will be interesting to watch.
Christian Action for Israel
The role of religion is very important in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The alleged foundations of the Israeli state were based on the Biblical ideas of the "Jewish homeland". My focus, though, won't be directly on religion in Israel or Palestine, but the role of religion in influencing the opinion of the American and Canadian public.
I stumbled across a very interesting site called "Christian Action for Israel", which deals with the state of Israel and its rights on the land. One of the articles there was called "Witness to the Nations" with the subtitle - "Occupation? Don't buy the misinformation!"
The authors' main argument is the Bible, as is usual with religious people. For example, when they speak about the "lack of biblical/historical knowledge and understanding" (see the irony there?), they say that "Arab/Muslim hatred of the Jews, and or, an ancient jealousy of them that burns deeply in the hearts of Israel's Arab kin..." This shows us the image that the Israeli's and/or Christians are superior to the Muslims, who supposedly feel an ancient jealousy towards the Christians and Jews. They do not put any sort of referencing or sources, and it is very obvious that it is the ideas of the "other" that are pervasive here.
They also ask "What does God, creator of the heavens and the earth have to say about this tiny tract of land called Israel in His Word - the Holy Bible", when actually, as every Christian ought to know, the Holy Bible is NOT the Word of God, unlike the K'uran, for example. That is just a theological fact, but is often ignored in cases like this.
Another interesting article was the Senate Floor Statement by the current Senator of Oklahoma, James M. Inhofe, on March 4th, 2002. I've put up the link from the Senator's web page, because the one on the Christian Action site had some mistakes (i.e. date of the Six-Day War).
Anyway, he talks about the history of the area (or at least, an interpretation of it) and gives a lot of ridiculous statements such as ""If this [peace] is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this [peace] is wrong" or "Where was this great Palestinian nation [in 1867]? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there" and "If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?". The goal of his speech is to give the 7 reasons why Israel is entitled to the land, and his strongest argument is: "No. 7, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so."
Obviously, he must be very popular with the people of Oklahoma, who are generally thought of as religious people, since he has been their Senator since 1994. His general platform about issues involving the U.S. such as social issues, not just foreign relations, are generally guided by religion. In an interview with the "General Council of the Assemblies of God" in June 2002, he talked about he brought religion to the Senate. Actually, the title of the interview is "Seving Christ in the Senate". Talking about key issues for Christians, he mentions the Middle East and the Scriptures, "I don’t believe there is a single issue we deal with in government that hasn’t been dealt with in the Scriptures." Basically, his entire political platform is based on religion, and so are his views of the Middle East and the solution to the problem of the conflict in Palestine. Just following the words of God.
I also found an interesting video on YouTube, which has been filmed at a conference called "Christians United for Israel". The video is from June 2008, but it shows how some fundamental Christians in the United States think about Israel and Palestine. The video itself is pretty ridiculous and, frankly, somewhat disturbing. One hears people say that the U.S. and Israel "have a common enemy, the Muslim people", and that Christians "are fighting what is behind the Muslim people, which is Satan" and ideas that if the U.S. does not support Israel, the Muslims will take over Israel and Iraq (?!) and then come to take the U.S. Unfortunately, in the U.S. religious people seem to have more power than in any other 'Western' country and they help keep the support for Israel high, on the basis of the Bible and their pre-conceptions of Jews and Arabs.
What do you think? Should we try to get "secular" in this issue? Do you think we can actually achieve piece without being secular? Any other thoughts?
I stumbled across a very interesting site called "Christian Action for Israel", which deals with the state of Israel and its rights on the land. One of the articles there was called "Witness to the Nations" with the subtitle - "Occupation? Don't buy the misinformation!"
The authors' main argument is the Bible, as is usual with religious people. For example, when they speak about the "lack of biblical/historical knowledge and understanding" (see the irony there?), they say that "Arab/Muslim hatred of the Jews, and or, an ancient jealousy of them that burns deeply in the hearts of Israel's Arab kin..." This shows us the image that the Israeli's and/or Christians are superior to the Muslims, who supposedly feel an ancient jealousy towards the Christians and Jews. They do not put any sort of referencing or sources, and it is very obvious that it is the ideas of the "other" that are pervasive here.
They also ask "What does God, creator of the heavens and the earth have to say about this tiny tract of land called Israel in His Word - the Holy Bible", when actually, as every Christian ought to know, the Holy Bible is NOT the Word of God, unlike the K'uran, for example. That is just a theological fact, but is often ignored in cases like this.
Another interesting article was the Senate Floor Statement by the current Senator of Oklahoma, James M. Inhofe, on March 4th, 2002. I've put up the link from the Senator's web page, because the one on the Christian Action site had some mistakes (i.e. date of the Six-Day War).
Anyway, he talks about the history of the area (or at least, an interpretation of it) and gives a lot of ridiculous statements such as ""If this [peace] is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this [peace] is wrong" or "Where was this great Palestinian nation [in 1867]? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there" and "If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?". The goal of his speech is to give the 7 reasons why Israel is entitled to the land, and his strongest argument is: "No. 7, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so."
Obviously, he must be very popular with the people of Oklahoma, who are generally thought of as religious people, since he has been their Senator since 1994. His general platform about issues involving the U.S. such as social issues, not just foreign relations, are generally guided by religion. In an interview with the "General Council of the Assemblies of God" in June 2002, he talked about he brought religion to the Senate. Actually, the title of the interview is "Seving Christ in the Senate". Talking about key issues for Christians, he mentions the Middle East and the Scriptures, "I don’t believe there is a single issue we deal with in government that hasn’t been dealt with in the Scriptures." Basically, his entire political platform is based on religion, and so are his views of the Middle East and the solution to the problem of the conflict in Palestine. Just following the words of God.
I also found an interesting video on YouTube, which has been filmed at a conference called "Christians United for Israel". The video is from June 2008, but it shows how some fundamental Christians in the United States think about Israel and Palestine. The video itself is pretty ridiculous and, frankly, somewhat disturbing. One hears people say that the U.S. and Israel "have a common enemy, the Muslim people", and that Christians "are fighting what is behind the Muslim people, which is Satan" and ideas that if the U.S. does not support Israel, the Muslims will take over Israel and Iraq (?!) and then come to take the U.S. Unfortunately, in the U.S. religious people seem to have more power than in any other 'Western' country and they help keep the support for Israel high, on the basis of the Bible and their pre-conceptions of Jews and Arabs.
What do you think? Should we try to get "secular" in this issue? Do you think we can actually achieve piece without being secular? Any other thoughts?
Jewish Forward Spoof on Gaza
Link to spoof of Extreme Makeover. Is this over the line? I do not think anyone would argue that people are not allowed to make fun of themselves but when it is something like this and it involves such a tense situation is this over the line? In the case of the Danish comics a few years ago that incensed the entire Muslim world it was very contentious to have an outsider "making fun of" something which is clearly a sensitive issue. While the rest of the Backward (it is the spoof version of the Jewish Daily Forward, the premier Jewish news source in the United States) is much more tame and self-deprecating, this seems to toe the line a little bit. What do you guys think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
